.gif) Les Cohortes Célestes ont le devoir et le regret de vous informer que Libres Propos est entré en sommeil. Ce forum convivial et sympathique reste uniquement accessible en lecture seule. Prenez plaisir à le consulter.
Merci de votre compréhension. |
|
| | Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise |  |
|
+6Charly Shansaa Alice jam EddieCochran Biloulou 10 participants | |
| Auteur | Message |
|---|
Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 6/7/2009, 08:44 | |
| Rappel du premier message :Bonjour Biloulou  Il me semblait que cette nouvelle plairait! |
| | | |
| Auteur | Message |
|---|
Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1624 - 13/12/2009, 17:00 | |
| ... et pourtant il(s) continuent son(leur) CHANGEment(chambardement).  Date ........... Presidential Approval Index - Strongly Approve - Strongly Disapprove - Total Approve - Total Disapprove | 12/13/2009 | -19 | 23% | 42% | 46% | 53% | | 12/12/2009 | -16 | 25% | 41% | 46% | 53% | | 12/11/2009 | -12 | 27% | 39% | 47% | 51% | | 12/10/2009 | -12 | 28% | 40% | 46% | 53% | | 12/09/2009 | -10 | 29% | 39% | 48% | 52% | | 12/08/2009 | -11 | 27% | 38% | 47% | 52% | | 12/07/2009 | -11 | 27% | 38% | 49% | 50% | | 12/06/2009 | -14 | 25% | 39% | 47% | 52% | | 12/05/2009 | -14 | 26% | 40% | 47% | 52% | | 12/04/2009 | -12 | 28% | 40% | 46% | 54% | | 12/03/2009 | -11 | 29% | 40% | 46% | 54% | | 12/02/2009 | -12 | 27% | 39% | 47% | 52% | | 12/01/2009 | -13 | 27% | 40% | 47% | 52% | | 11/30/2009 | -14 | 26% | 40% | 47% | 52% |
---------- | 01/21/2009 | +28 | 44% | 16% | 65% | 30% |
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1625 - 13/12/2009, 17:22 | |
| Senate Poses Obstacles to Obama Pledge on Climate
From left: Chris Jackson/Getty Images; Jeff J Mitchell, via Getty Images; Doug Mills, via The New York Times
PROBLEMS President Obama faces opposition in Congress to his climate plans.
By JOHN M. BRODERPublished: December 12, 2009 WASHINGTON — President Obama jets off to Copenhagen later this week to try to place an American stamp on a global climate change agreement. He will be trailed by a cloud of diplomats and bureaucrats all proclaiming the progress his administration has made on global warming in its 11 months in office. - Spoiler:
What he will not be carrying is the assent of Congress to whatever he commits the United States to do. That’s a problem for a leader who represents the world’s second biggest greenhouse gas polluter, behind China.
While the House passed a bill in June that embodies Mr. Obama’s pledge to reduce those emissions to about 17 percent below 2005 levels over the next decade, the Senate has barely begun to debate the issue.
The Senate is split on global warming policy into numerous factions divided by ideology, geography and economic interest. And that’s just the Democratic caucus. Republicans are nearly united in opposition to the kind of legislation that would be needed to match Mr. Obama’s ambitions.
Without Senate action — and, down the road, Senate concurrence in any climate treaty he negotiates — Mr. Obama’s promises are merely that, almost certainly not enough to persuade other nations to commit to greenhouse gas reductions.
Can Mr. Obama surmount those problems in his latest effort to save the world? Or will he fly away from Copenhagen as empty-handed as he did in September, when he went there in a losing effort to promote Chicago as the site for the 2016 Olympics?
“This is definitely a Goldilocks problem,” said Jason Grumet, president of the Bipartisan Policy Center and an energy adviser to the Obama campaign last year.
“The trick is finding something just right in balancing the importance of demonstrating international leadership while not undermining the legislative dynamic here at home.”
Mr. Obama enters the Copenhagen negotiations without anything close to consensus in his own party for his cap-and-trade plan to reduce emissions. The issue pits coastal liberals against the so-called Brown Dogs of the Rust Belt and the Great Plains whose states depend heavily on coal for power and manufacturing for jobs. At least a dozen of these Democrats have made it clear they will not accept any legislation — or any treaty — that threatens their industries or jobs. Another Senate coalition emerged last week behind a proposal to tax fossil fuels and return most of the revenues to consumers to compensate for higher energy prices. But that plan, though it has drawn some Republican support, is also unlikely to meet the 60-vote threshold required to call a vote.
It is not at all clear today that Mr. Obama and his allies in the Senate can overcome these obstacles next year, or ever. And without the Senate, the entire international project is in jeopardy because without the participation of the United States — which emits 20 percent of all greenhouse gases — any international regime is bound to fall short.
See: Kyoto Protocol. That was the ill-fated 1997 climate accord that the Senate refused to consider because it made no binding demands on developing nations to limit their emissions. The Copenhagen conference is supposed to come up with a framework to replace it, and one of the big fights standing in the way is the level of emissions reductions that developing nations are willing to accept.
“It’s a nine-dimensional political challenge,” Mr. Grumet said. “There is absolutely no way to satisfy all desires.”
Mr. Obama is trying to both prod the Senate into action and go around it with a series of administrative actions that will begin unilaterally to address the problem of greenhouse gas emissions and demonstrate to other nations the president’s will to tackle the issue.
His administration struck a deal with automakers to increase fuel efficiency by 30 percent and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a similar amount by 2016. Some $80 billion in stimulus spending has been earmarked for clean energy projects, energy efficiency and research on capturing carbon emissions. The government will require that all major pollution sources report their greenhouse gas emissions starting in January. And earlier this month the Environmental Protection Agency finalized its finding that carbon dioxide and other climate-altering gases pose a threat to human health and welfare, paving the way for sweeping, economy-wide regulation of global warming pollutants.
E.P.A. regulation is the trump card that the administration is holding if Congress continues to dither. But Mr. Obama has repeatedly said that he much prefers a messy Congressional compromise. Trying to remake much of the economy by regulatory fiat is certain to become entangled in years of litigation.
Yet Mr. Obama cannot simply tell the other leaders at Copenhagen that he must await assent from Congress before he can commit the United States on global warming. He is asking the leaders of Western Europe and Australia to commit troops to support his buildup in Afghanistan and he can hardly stiff them on climate change, a global threat many of them consider as menacing as terrorism.
In other words, his trip this week may have as much to do with Kandahar as Copenhagen. But that does not necessarily help his cause at home.
Senator James Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, is the leader of Congressional skeptics on the science of climate change and the global efforts to address it. He said that Mr. Obama is handcuffed by Senate fractiousness on the issue and new doubts among some about the basic science underpinning the talks. (The overwhelming majority of atmospheric scientists believe the planet is warming and humans are responsible.)
“I suspect President Obama is making the trip to Copenhagen in order to ‘save’ the climate conference,” Mr. Inhofe said. “Yet no amount of lofty rhetoric or promises of future commitments can save it. This is due in large part to the fact cap-and-trade legislation in the Senate is dying on the vine, and, as important, are recent revelations of leading climate scientists who appear to have manufactured the climate ‘consensus’ casting doubt over the entire global warming enterprise.”
All of which leaves Mr. Obama in a bind.
More than a year ago, Mr. Obama said of climate change: “Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response.”
But when Mr. Obama and other world leaders met last month, they were forced to abandon the goal of reaching a binding accord at Copenhagen because the American political system is not ready to agree to a treaty that would force the United States, over time, to accept profound changes in its energy, transport and manufacturing sectors.
So the leaders said they planned to leave Copenhagen with an interim political deal and work toward a binding treaty next year.
Delay, it turns out, was the only option.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 13/12/2009, 17:30 | |
| vous avez un nouveau maire à Houston une dame qui aime les dames  |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 13/12/2009, 19:08 | |
| Voui, mais seuls les residents de Houston l'ont elue. "Nous autres" dans la banlieue, on paie les taxes locales mais ca s'arrete la!  Ceci dit, il parait qu'elle est tres capable, nous verrons. De toutes facons, Democrate pour Democrate... En passant, l'ancien maire, Bill White, aussi un Democrate et, lui aussi, tres capable, est candidat au poste de gouverneur. Evidemment, je souhaite que Kay Bailey Hutchinson (une des deux Senateurs du Texas) sera elue, mais bon, nous verrons. Un Democrate a Austin pourrait etre tres grave surtout dans la situation economique actuelle. Comme je l'expliquais recemment, le Texas est un des etats qui survit le mieux a la crise, le fait que les Texans ne payent pas d'impots sur le revenu a l'etat (pour Jam: mais ils en paient a l'etat federal) est une des raisons. |
| | | | EddieCochran
Admin
 Nombre de messages : 12768
Age : 64
Localisation : Countat da Nissa
Date d'inscription : 03/11/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 14/12/2009, 01:46 | |
| 628 - - Sylvette a écrit:
- (...)Evidemment, je souhaite que Kay Bailey Hutchinson (une des deux Senateurs du Texas)
Pour une fois que la langue française académique impose en l'espèce l'usage de la féminisation d'un substantif portant sur une fonction élective exercée par une personne de sexe féminin usez-en sans réserve Ma Chère Sylvette : madame KBH est Sénatrice du Texas, qu'on se le dise. (Je fais l'âne, je sais bien qu'au pluriel c'est le masculin qui fait loi et que si l'on s'adresse verbalement à une sénatrice la formule de politesse est "Sénateur". J'adore cette langue.) (Ah bon ! Elle préfèrerait les dames aux messieurs ? Comme moi ! La concurrence avec ses coups bas devient chaque jour plus féroce...) | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 14/12/2009, 09:07 | |
| - EddieCochran a écrit:
- 628 -
- Sylvette a écrit:
- (...)Evidemment, je souhaite que Kay Bailey Hutchinson (une des deux Senateurs du Texas)
Pour une fois que la langue française académique impose en l'espèce l'usage de la féminisation d'un substantif portant sur une fonction élective exercée par une personne de sexe féminin usez-en sans réserve Ma Chère Sylvette : madame KBH est Sénatrice du Texas, qu'on se le dise. (Je fais l'âne, je sais bien qu'au pluriel c'est le masculin qui fait loi et que si l'on s'adresse verbalement à une sénatrice la formule de politesse est "Sénateur". J'adore cette langue.)
(Ah bon ! Elle préfèrerait les dames aux messieurs ? Comme moi ! La concurrence avec ses coups bas devient chaque jour plus féroce...) Bonjour Eddie! madame KBH est Sénatrice du TexasVoui, vous m'en aviez deja fait la remarque. Je le savais d'ailleurs mais parfois je tape en francais et pense en anglais: senator (J'espere que vous ne m'en voudrez pas trop  ). La, "une des senateurs" etait volontaire, John Cornyn etant un "male" et connaissant la regle des pluriels applicable en l'occurence) ==== Ah bon ! Elle préfèrerait les dames aux messieurs ?
Ah! C'est elle qui le dit! (dans ce cas particulier, ca lui a certainement rapporte beaucoup des voix du quartier de Montrose). |
| | | | Biloulou
Nombre de messages : 54566
Localisation : Jardins suspendus sur la Woluwe - Belgique
Date d'inscription : 27/10/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 14/12/2009, 09:15 | |
| Un jour, dans un embarras total, j'ai téléphoné à l'Académie Royale de Langue Française de Belgique et depuis lors je suis leurs conseils sans réserve. Dans le cas présent : Madame le Sénateur : la dame qui porte le titre et la charge de sénateur. Madame la Sénatrice : l'épouse d'un monsieur qui est sénateur Mais bon, tout ça est une question d'habitude et à chacun les siennes... sous l'autorité bienveillante des gardiens de la langue... | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 14/12/2009, 09:17 | |
| |
| | | | Biloulou
Nombre de messages : 54566
Localisation : Jardins suspendus sur la Woluwe - Belgique
Date d'inscription : 27/10/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 14/12/2009, 09:30 | |
| Bonjour Dame Sylvette, vous avez regagné la terre ferme ?  | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 14/12/2009, 11:38 | |
| Bonjour Biloulou!  Oui, meme si... |
| | | | EddieCochran
Admin
Nombre de messages : 12768
Age : 64
Localisation : Countat da Nissa
Date d'inscription : 03/11/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 14/12/2009, 12:58 | |
| 634 - - Biloulou a écrit:
- Un jour, dans un embarras total, j'ai téléphoné à l'Académie Royale de Langue Française de Belgique et depuis lors je suis leurs conseils sans réserve.
li doit y avoir conflit sémantico-idéologique entre les thèses royales et les oukases républicains. - Citation :
- Dans le cas présent :
Madame le Sénateur : la dame qui porte le titre et la charge de sénateur.
Madame la Sénatrice : l'épouse d'un monsieur qui est sénateur Sur la dame qui porte le titre et la charge sur ses frêles épaules nous sommes en phase de ce côté-ci du Quiévrain. Par contre pour le reste il semble qu'il y ait interférence avec pharmacien - le titre du possesseur du doctorat de pharmacie - et la pharmacienne es qualité son épouse qui par le jeu de l'enseignement démocratisé peut dans le même mouvement être pharmacien diplomé. Pareil pour une dame officier supérieur qui est titulaire du grade de Colonel, la colonelle étant à la ville l'épouse du colonel. UMP et Vlaam Block : en Défédération royale belge l'époux de Madame le Sénateur est-il dans lors des mondanités à appeler Monsieur la Sénatrice ? - Citation :
- Mais bon, tout ça est une question d'habitude et à chacun les siennes... sous l'autorité bienveillante des gardiens de la langue...
Oui mais en francophonie mondialisée nous sommes hélas séparés par la même langue. | |
| | | | Biloulou
Nombre de messages : 54566
Localisation : Jardins suspendus sur la Woluwe - Belgique
Date d'inscription : 27/10/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 14/12/2009, 13:51 | |
| - EddieCochran a écrit:
- Sur la dame qui porte le titre et la charge sur ses frêles épaules nous sommes en phase de ce côté-ci du Quiévrain.
Par contre pour le reste il semble qu'il y ait interférence avec pharmacien - le titre du possesseur du doctorat de pharmacie - et la pharmacienne es qualité son épouse qui par le jeu de l'enseignement démocratisé peut dans le même mouvement être pharmacien diplomé.
Pareil pour une dame officier supérieur qui est titulaire du grade de Colonel, la colonelle étant à la ville l'épouse du colonel. Cher Eddie, bonjour ! Des détails me reviennent. Le mot qui m'avait conduit à interroger Monsieur le Secrétaire perpétuel était à l'époque le mot qui avait entraîné la révolte prolétarienne : ministre. De mémoire, la règle donnée par Monsieur le Secrétaire était valable pour le mots qui n'avaient pas de féminin au dictionnaire et qui pouvaient (c'est ma déduction en cet instant) être utilisés comme titre, charge, ou désignation d'une qualité. - EddieCochran a écrit:
- UMP et Vlaam Block : en Défédération royale belge l'époux de Madame le Sénateur est-il dans lors des mondanités à appeler Monsieur la Sénatrice ?
UDF, MoDem et Père Siffleur confondus : d'initiative personnelle je l'appellerait simplement "monsieur" pour ne pas entamer sa dignité, mais il faudrait demander à un fin connaisseur à la fois en langue française et en bons usages... ça doit pouvoir se trouver ici même sur LP... - Citation :
- Oui mais en francophonie mondialisée nous sommes hélas séparés par la même langue.
Sans doute, et même un peu vipérine en l'occurrence.  | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1636 - 14/12/2009, 15:28 | |
| Grandeur et decadence: - Date ........ Presidential Approval Index - Strongly Approve - Strongly Disapprove - Total Approve - Total Disapprove 12/14/2009 ............... -18 ......................... 24% ........................ 42% ................ 44% ......... 55% 01/21/2009 ................ 28 ......................... 44% ........................ 16% ................. 65% ......... 30% Monday, December 14, 2009The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18. That’s a one point improvement from yesterday when Obama’s Approval Index rating fell to the lowest level yet recorded. Prior to the past three days, the Approval Index had never fallen below -15 during Obama’s time in office (see trends). As the health care plan struggles in the Senate, public opposition remains stable.Fifty-six percent (56% ) oppose the plan working its way through Congress while just 40% favor it. In Nevada, the health care bill is causing problems for Senate Majority Leader [url=http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/nevada/election_2010_nevada_senate_race] Harry Reid’s bid for re-election[/url] . The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook. Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That’s the lowest level yet measured for this president. Previously, his overall approval rating had fallen to 45% twice, once in early September and once in late November. Fifty-five percent (55%) now disapprove. Seventy-two percent (72%) of Democrats now offer their approval while 80% of Republicans disapprove. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, just 36% approve. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of liberals approve while 76% of conservatives disapprove. The bad news for the President is that there are a lot more conservatives in the country than liberals. However, he gets a bit of a boost because 57% of moderate voters still offer their approval. The President earns approval from 37% of White voters and 98% of African-American voters. ...
Dernière édition par Sylvette le 16/12/2009, 09:00, édité 1 fois |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1637 - 16/12/2009, 08:40 | |
| Les 56% (contre 40% selon Rasmussen) opposes au projet de loi concernant la nouvelle couverture medicale proposee par les Democrates n'auraient pas pu mieux dire et on reprochait a Bush 43 de ne pas respecter les sondages! Updated December 15, 2009
Obama: Senate Democrats on the 'Precipice' of Health Care Reform
FOXNews.com
President Obama said Tuesday that Senate Democrats were on the verge of passing historic legislation to overhaul the U.S. health care system.
Article comments (353) /static/all/img
d7f0e863f4195210VgnVCM100000a0c1a8c0RCRD
/politics/2009/12/15/medicare-buy-scrapped-obama-summons-dems
Updated December 15, 2009
Obama: Senate Democrats on the 'Precipice' of Health Care Reform
FOXNews.com President Obama said Tuesday that Senate Democrats were on the verge of passing historic legislation to overhaul the U.S. health care system. - Spoiler:
President Obama makes a statement on health care reform after meeting with senators, Tuesday, Dec. 15, 2009, at the White House. (AP)
WASHINGTON -- After meeting with Senate Democrats at the White House in an effort to cement support for his top domestic priority, President Obama said Tuesday that they were on the verge of passing historic legislation to overhaul the U.S. health care system.
"From the discussions we had, it's clear we are on the precipice of achievement that's eluded Congresses, presidents for generations -- an achievement that will touch the lives of nearly every American," Obama said.
"There are still some differences that have to be worked on," he said. "But whatever differences remain, there is broad consensus around reform."
Obama added that he is "cautiously optimistic" the bill will be passed.
Obama said he told the senators that the party cannot let differences over individual portions of the overhaul measure kill overall attempts to reform the system. He said the measure, no matter what its final form, will be the greatest legislative achievement on health care since the passage of Medicare four decades ago.
Earlier, Sen. Joe Lieberman, who has sent Democratic leaders and the White House scrambling in recent days to find a compromise that would win his support for the legislation, signaled that their efforts have nearly succeeded.
"I'm getting to a position where I can say what I wanted to say all along: that I'm ready to vote for health care reform," the independent from Connecticut told reporters Tuesday.
Lieberman had threatened to join Republicans in throwing the legislation off the tracks if Democrats included a proposal to expand Medicare -- a compromise that would have replaced a government-run insurance program that liberals have long sought.
Obama needs every member of the Democratic caucus to hang together to give him the 60 votes required to overcome Republicans united in opposition to the sweeping health overhaul measure.
"I think we're headed in the right direction," Lieberman said. "My whole point has been here, the president laid out a couple of big goals for this process. Bend the cost curve down for individuals, families, businesses, our government, our economy and health care.
"Secondly, bring in a lot of people who can't afford health insurance now. The basic core bill does that."
Lieberman's statement followed a closed-door senators-only meeting of the Democratic caucus called to consider trade-offs necessary to assure 60 votes for the bill. Medicare is the government program providing health care benefits to the elderly.
"Put me down tonight as encouraged about the direction these talks are going," Lieberman, said late Monday, only 24 hours after he rattled Democrats with his threat.
But some Democrats, while hopeful a deal can still be reached, expressed frustration with the latest revolt from Lieberman, who campaigned heavily against Obama last year in the presidential election.
"To often, it appears that the psychology in the Senate is the psychology of one," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland told Fox News when asked about Lieberman, without mentioning the senator by name.
"(Senate Majority Leader Harry) Reid doesn't have the votes for a public option," Hoyer lamented. "In a world of alternatives, you focus on what you can get."
Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland told Fox News Tuesday that he's frustrated at the lack of progress on a pubic option..
"We're trying to get this bill done," he said. "I can't tell you that I'm angry. I'm a little bit frustrated that we've been negotiating and we haven't been able to nail down an agreement on the public option.
"However I think we're very close," he added. "I think we're going to get it done before Christmas and I think Joe Lieberman will be supporting the bill. So this is all part of the process and we're going to work out our differences."
Reid promised to deliver a deal before Christmas.
"I'm confident that by next week we will be on our way toward final passage of a bill that saves lives, saves money and saves Medicare," Reid told reporters after Monday night's meeting.
Liberals had sought the Medicare expansion as a last-minute substitute for a full-blown, government-run insurance program that moderates insisted be removed from the legislation. But it drew strong opposition from Lieberman and quieter concerns from other Democrats -- all of whom hold votes essential for passage.
Reid did not say flatly that Democrats had decided to drop the proposal for uninsured Americans as young as 55 to purchase coverage under Medicare, the government program now open to people when they turn 65. But several senators said it appeared inevitable.
"We're not going to get all that we want but we're going to get so much more than we have," liberal Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia said.
There was no let-up in Republican criticism.
Sen. Mitch McConnell, the party's leader, said the legislation includes "a half a trillion dollars in cuts in Medicare, $400 billion in higher taxes and higher premiums for everyone else."
The overall measure, costing nearly $1 trillion over a decade, is designed to expand coverage with a new requirement for nearly everyone to purchase health insurance, and ban industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions. Obama also has urged Congress to slow the growth in health care spending nationally; several days after Reid submitted a package of revisions, lawmakers awaited final word from the Congressional Budget Office on that point.
Disputes over abortion and the importation of prescription drugs from Canada and other countries also simmered as the Senate entered a third week of debate on the legislation.
Sen. Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, led the effort to lift a long-standing ban on the importation of prescription drugs from Canada and elsewhere. Obama favored the plan as a senator, but the pharmaceutical industry is opposed, and the White House appeared anxious not to jeopardize a monthslong alliance with drug makers who have been helpful in trying to pass the overhaul. A vote was set for late Tuesday.
The obstacle that loomed largest was the Medicare expansion proposal, vestige of a monthslong debate over the role of government in the newly revised health care system. It emerged last week as part of a framework agreement between moderates and liberals. Additionally, the proposal calls for creation of nationwide plans run by private insurance companies under the supervision of the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees health plans for members of Congress and other federal workers.
The two provisions were seen as a replacement for Reid's initial call for a government-run insurance plan to compete with private industry, a liberal priority opposed by moderates as an unwanted government intrusion. The one unrelated to Medicare is expected to survive, but without standby authority for the OPM to set up a government-run plan if no private coverage options materialize.
Opposition to the Medicare change blossomed from doctors and hospitals, who are paid less to treat Medicare patients than those covered by private insurance companies.
Fox News' Chad Pergram and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
===== Un rapport quelconque avec le revirement de "Joe"? La femme de Lieberman attaquee par les Liberaux.L'epouse de Lieberman attaquee par les Liberaux[url]Obama: Senate De,pcrats pm tje Obama: Senate Democrats on the "Precipice" of Health Care ReformObama: Senate Democrats on the "precipice" of Health Care Reform |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 16/12/2009, 08:58 | |
| Soyons justes: certains Republicains n'ont rien a envier a leurs collegues au sujet de depenses excessives, mais bon, ne nous avait-on pas promis le CHANGEment a partir de Janvier dernier?
[center]What economic crisis? |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1639 - 18/12/2009, 15:04 | |
| Quand la gauche et la droite se rejoignent!!! Obamacare: 56% d'opposants au projet de loi (ce qui est surprenant, tant les Republicains et que les extra-Liberaux!) John McCain a Dean (que "Nice" n'a jamais soutenu comme candidat aux presidentielles sur ce site  ): "I am with you!!!" Qui l'eut cru? O'Reilly |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1640 - 18/12/2009, 17:03 | |
| On environment, Obama and scientists take hit in pollBy Jon Cohen and Jennifer AgiestaWashington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 18, 2009; 12:03 AM As President Obama arrives in Copenhagen hoping to seal an elusive deal on climate change, his approval rating on dealing with global warming has crumbled at home and there is broad opposition to spending taxpayer money to encourage developing nations to curtail their energy use, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. - Spoiler:
There's also rising public doubt and growing political polarization about what scientists have to say on the environment, and a widespread perception that there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether global warming is happening.
But for all the challenges American policymakers have to overcome, nearly two-thirds of people surveyed say the federal government should regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to curb global warming. Last week the Environmental Protection Agency said it is putting together plans to control the emissions of six gases deemed dangerous to the environment and public.
Support for such a regulation is down 10 percentage points from June, but majorities of Americans remain supportive of such regulations even if they increased monthly bills, so long as they lower greenhouse gas levels. If energy bills jumped $10 a month, 60 percent back new limits; at $25 a month, it's 55 percent.
Most, however, oppose a widely floated proposal in which the United States and other industrialized countries would contribute $10 billion a year to help developing countries pay for reducing the amount of greenhouse gases they release. Overall, 57 percent of those polled oppose this idea; 39 percent support it. Most Republicans (74 percent) and independents (58 percent) are against this proposal, while a small majority of Democrats (54 percent) are supportive.
At the same time, there's growing negativity toward the president's handling of the broader global warming issue. Around the 100-day mark of Obama's presidency, 61 percent approved of the way he was dealing with the issue. Approval slumped to 54 percent in June and to 45 percent in the new poll.
The drop in Obama's ratings has been driven by a steep slump among political independents, who went from 62 percent positive in April to 36 percent now.
Scientists themselves also come in for more negative assessments in the poll, with four in 10 Americans now saying that they place little or no trust in what scientists have to say about the environment. That's up significantly in recent years. About 58 percent of Republicans now put little or no faith in scientists on the subject, double the number saying so in April 2007. Over this time frame, distrust among independents bumped up from 24 to 40 percent, while Democrats changed only marginally. Among seniors, the number of skeptics more than doubled, to 51 percent.
The declining confidence comes when the administration is trying to get momentum for an international pact on climate change, leveraging broad consensus among scientists that global warming is a real threat that demands immediate action. Another obstacle, however, is that relatively few of those polled perceive such an accord.
In fact, more than six in 10 Americans see a lot of disagreement among scientists on the issue of global warming. That's the view of nearly eight in 10 Republicans and about two-thirds of independents. A smaller majority of Democrats, 55 percent, see general agreement among the scientific community.
The poll was conducted by telephone Thursday through Sunday among a random national sample of 1,003 adults. Results from the full survey have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1641 - 18/12/2009, 17:14 | |
| December 17, 2009 When the Charm Rubs OffBy George WillWASHINGTON -- Rushing to lock the nation into expensive health care and climate change commitments, Democrats are in an understandable frenzy because public enthusiasm for both crusades has been inversely proportional to the time the public has had to think about them. And the president pushing this agenda has, with his incontinent hunger for attention, seen his job approval vary inversely with his ubiquity. Consider his busy December -- so far. - Spoiler:
His Dec. 1 Afghanistan speech to the nation was followed on Dec. 3 by his televised "jobs summit." His Dec. 8 televised economics speech at the Brookings Institution was followed on Dec. 10 by his televised Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, which was remarkable for 38 uses of the pronoun "I."
And for disavowing a competence no one suspected him of. ("I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war." Note the superfluous adjective.) And for an unnecessary notification. ("Evil does exist in the world.") And for delayed utopianism. ("We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes." But in someone's.) And for solemnly announcing something undisputed. (There can be a just war.) And for intellectual applesauce that should get speechwriters fired and editors hired. ("We do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected." If the human "condition" can attain perfection anyway, human nature cannot be significantly imperfect.)
Then on Dec. 13, he was on "60 Minutes" praising himself with another denigration of his predecessor, aka "the last eight years." (Blighted by "a triumphant sense about war.") When Attorney General Eric Holder announced that five accused terrorists would be tried in federal courts, he said: "After eight years of delay. ..." When the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force made the controversial recommendation that women should get fewer mammograms, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said: "This panel was appointed by the prior administration, by former President George Bush." In congressional testimony, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner almost deviated from the script. He said the Obama administration began after "almost a decade" -- slight pause -- "certainly eight years of basic neglect."
Abroad, the fruits of the president's policy of "engagement" have been meager: Witness Iran continuing its nuclear program and China being difficult about carbon emissions. Here is a history lesson for an administration which, considering itself the culmination of history, is interested only in the last eight years of it:
At the Vienna summit in June 1961, President John Kennedy, fresh from his Bay of Pigs fiasco, was unnerved by the brutal disdain of Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, who considered Kennedy callow. Britain's Prime Minister Harold Macmillan astutely noted Kennedy had "met a man who was impervious to his charm."
A person can only be a novelty once, and only briefly, and charm, like any commodity, when used uneconomically becomes a wasting asset. All this is pertinent to the Senate health care debate, now coming to a curious climax amid another glut of careless grandiosity.
Supporters of the Senate bill say it will insure the uninsured. The Congressional Budget Office says 24 million of the 46.3 million uninsured will remain so. Supporters say it will lower aggregate and individual health care spending. The government's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says the nation's health care spending and insurance premium costs will increase.
Today there are more independents than Democrats, more independents than Republicans, and according to a recent Gallup poll, independents' approval of the Democratic-controlled Congress (14 percent) is lower than Republicans' approval (17 percent). This is partly a function of the majority party's health care monomania. Consider what happened recently in Kentucky.
There a Republican candidate succeeded in nationalizing a state Senate race. Hugely outspent in a district in which Democrats have a lopsided registration advantage, the Republican won by 12 points a seat in Frankfort by running against Washington -- against Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their health care legislation.
A CNN poll shows 36 percent of the public in favor of what the Democratic Senate is trying to do to health care, 61 percent opposed. It is clear what the public wants Congress to do: Take a mulligan and start over.
So Republicans can win in 2009 by stopping the bill, or in 2010 by saying: Unpopular health legislation passed because of a 60-40 party-line decision to bring it to a Senate vote. Therefore each incumbent Democrat is responsible for everything in the law.
checkTextResizerCookie('article_body');
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1642 - 18/12/2009, 17:22 | |
| WOW, assez extraordinaire...  Aaaaah, Si les Republicains avaient fait ca. Updated December 18, 2009Democratic Districts Won Twice as Much Stimulus as GOP Districts, Study ShowsFOXNews.com Democratic districts have received nearly twice as much stimulus money as Republican districts and the cash has been awarded without regard to how badly an area was suffering from job losses, according to a new study. - Spoiler:
Democratic districts have received nearly twice as much stimulus money as Republican districts and the cash has been awarded without regard to how badly an area was suffering from job losses, according to a new study.
The Mercatus Center at George Mason University reviewed the distribution of $157 billion in stimulus dollars based on publicly available reports and found that there was "no statistical correlation" between the amount of money a district got and its income or unemployment rate.
Rather, the study found that Democratic congressional districts received 1.89 times more money than GOP districts. The average award for Democratic districts was $439 million, while the average award for Republican ones was $232 million.
On average, Democratic districts also got 152 awards, while Republican ones got 94.
The data is sure to fuel skepticism about the $787 billion stimulus bill passed in February that only garnered three Republican votes. While the administration claims it has created 640,000 jobs, critics point to the still-soaring 10 percent unemployment rate in arguing that the stimulus has had a nominal effect.
Oddly, the Mercatus study found far more stimulus money went to higher-income areas than lower-income areas.
"We found no correlation between economic indicators and stimulus funding. Preliminary results find no effect of unemployment, median income, or mean income on stimulus funds allocation," the report said.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1643 - 18/12/2009, 17:31 | |
| Tiens, encore quelqu'un que l'on veut faire taire. Il en a lui aussi des idees de ne pas se soumettre! Updated December 17, 2009Franken* Shuts Down Lieberman on Senate FloorAP Democratic Sen. Al Franken took the unusual step Thursday of shutting down Sen. Joe Lieberman on the Senate floor.- Spoiler:
Democratic Sen. Al Franken took the unusual step Thursday of shutting down Sen. Joe Lieberman on the Senate floor.
Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, currently is the target of liberal wrath over his opposition to a government-run insurance plan in the health care bill.
Franken was presiding over the Senate Thursday afternoon as Lieberman spoke about amendments he planned to offer to the bill. Lieberman asked for an additional moment to finish -- a routine request -- but Franken refused to grant the time.
"In my capacity as the senator from Minnesota, I object," Franken said.
"Really?" said Lieberman. "OK."
Lieberman then said he'd submit the rest of his statement in writing.
Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona came to his friend Lieberman's defense, saying he'd never seen such a thing occur.
"I must say that I don't know what's happening here in this body but I think it's wrong," McCain said on the floor.
Franken's spokeswoman, Jess McIntosh, said that the Minnesota senator wouldn't allow Lieberman to continue because time limits were being enforced by Senate leaders rushing to finish a defense spending bill and get to the health bill.
* c'est d'autant plus surprenant qu'il n'a obtenu ce siege de senateur qu'apres plusieurs recomptages (dus a un minimum de voix en plus de son opposant) et qu'il existe maintenant preuve de fraudes commises par... ACORN, on pourrait s'attendre a ce que Franken se fasse un peu oublier! Mais non, vous avez dit arrogance? Le naturel de Franken, comique de basse classe, revient au galop apres avoir ete chasse pendant quelques mois. |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1644 - 18/12/2009, 17:49 | |
| Liberal Revolt on Health Care Stings White House By SHERYL GAY STOLBERGPublished: December 17, 2009 WASHINGTON — In the great health care debate of 2009, President Obama has cast himself as a cold-eyed pragmatist, willing to compromise in exchange for votes. Now ideology — an uprising on the Democratic left — is smacking the pragmatic president in the face.- Spoiler:
Stung by the intense White House effort to court the votes of moderate holdouts like Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, and Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, liberals are signaling that they have compromised enough. Grass-roots groups are balking, liberal commentators are becoming more critical of the president, some unions are threatening to withhold support and Howard Dean, the former Democratic Party chief, is urging the Senate to kill its health bill.
The White House scrambled Thursday to tamp down the revolt, which has been simmering for weeks but boiled over when the Senate Democratic leadership, bowing to Mr. Lieberman, scrapped language allowing people as young as 55 to buy into Medicare.
David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, began the day by calling in to MSNBC to urge the party to hold together, warning of a “tragic outcome” if Democrats failed to pass a bill that the White House says would expand health coverage while reining in costs.
“I don’t think you want this moment to pass,” Mr. Axelrod said. “It will not come back again.”
Former President Bill Clinton echoed the theme, issuing a statement in which he urged fellow Democrats to “take it from someone who knows: these chances don’t come around every day.”
Mr. Clinton’s former chief of staff, John Podesta, a close Obama ally, pushed back against Mr. Dean on the Internet and on television.
The backlash is building as Mr. Obama is under increasing pressure from his party’s left flank on issues ranging from the economy to Afghanistan. This week alone, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, declared that she would not insist that her caucus vote to finance Mr. Obama’s troop buildup, while Senator Bernard Sanders, the Vermont independent and self-avowed democratic socialist, chastised the president for reappointing Ben S. Bernanke as chairman of the Federal Reserve.
The left’s disenchantment with Mr. Obama on health care harks back to his decision, before he became president, not to try to replace the current private insurance system with a single-payer, government-run “Medicare for all” system. Throughout the year, at town-hall-style meetings and other public appearances, he has been dogged by advocates who have complained that he has sold out.
Instead, the president proposed what he called the public option, a government-run insurance plan that would coexist with private plans on a new health insurance exchange. For many on the left who are also dissatisfied with a deal the White House cut with the pharmaceutical industry, the public option was itself a compromise.
Now that the Senate Democratic leadership has stripped the last vestige of the public option — the Medicare buy-in provision — from its bill, progressives are feeling doubly betrayed.
“It’s time for the president to get his hands dirty,” Representative Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York, said in a statement this week. “Some of us have compromised our compromised compromise. We need the president to stand up for the values our party shares.”
The passion is most intense in the House, but it appears to be spilling over to the Senate. In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Sanders, another advocate of a single-payer system, said he was not certain how he would vote on the bill, though Democratic leaders have been assuming he would back it in the end.
“I don’t sleep well,” Mr. Sanders said. “I am struggling with this issue very hard, trying to sort out what is positive in this bill, what is negative in the bill, what it means for our country if there is no health insurance legislation, when we will come back to it.”
The senator added, “And I have to combine that with the fact that I absolutely know that the insurance companies and the drug companies will be laughing all the way to the bank the day after this is passed.”
The White House insists that is not the case. Aides to Mr. Obama argue that the bill includes a variety of consumer protections — like ending lifetime coverage caps and the practice of refusing patients with pre-existing conditions — that will make insurers unhappy.1
“People need to put this in perspective,” Dan Pfeiffer, Mr. Obama’s communications director, said in an interview on Thursday. “Two years ago, the Democratic Party would have done anything for the opportunity to pass a health care reform like this. Let’s realize how far we’ve come, and how close we are to making history.”2
1 et 2: ... ca semble etre le plus important pour le gouvernement Obama et la pluspart des elus Democrates
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1645 - 18/12/2009, 22:30 | |
| Decidement, Le POTUS est obnubile par l'importance de son empreinte sur l'HISTOUARE! Plus par ca que par ce que la majorite des Americains souhaitent. Obama gets climate deal with China, India, S.Africa  COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama reached a climate agreement on Friday with leaders from India, South Africa and China that will be a "historic step forward" in combating global warming, a U.S. official said. "No country is entirely satisfied with each element but this is a meaningful and historic step forward and a foundation from which to make further progress," the official said."It's not sufficient to combat the threat of climate change but it's an important first step."The backing of leading emitter China and other fast developing economies was crucial to any deal.(Reporting by Jeff Mason; editing by Janet McBride) |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1646 - 19/12/2009, 09:37 | |
| ... 1643 O'Reilly (avec video des echanges Lieberman - Franken - McCain) |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1647 - 20/12/2009, 13:55 | |
| Au sujet de la lecture ou de la non-lecture des 2000 pages de l'OBAMACARE! Senator Lamar Alexander (R - Tenn.)- A 2,000-Page Health Care Bilarks of U.S.
October 29th, 2009 - Madam President, I have an important announcement to make on another subject which is of interest to the American people. - Spoiler:
The era of the thousand-page bill is over. We now have a 2,000-page bill, a new health care bill introduced in the House of Representatives today by Speaker Pelosi. What we will do on the Republican side, and what I hope our friends on the Democratic side will do as well, and what every American expects us to do, is read all 2,000 pages and know exactly what it costs before we begin to vote on the congressional Democrats' health care bill.
For example, while we know just a few things about the bill, we know the price tag is likely to be more $1 trillion. So it is 2,000 pages, more than $1 trillion.
We know the physicians Medicare reimbursement rate, which is important to all of us to be included, is scheduled to be treated separately there. Well, it wasn't treated separately here. On what was the first vote on health care a week ago, 13 Democrats joined with 40 Republicans to say we are not going to begin the health care debate by increasing the deficit by $1/4 trillion. That was an important statement to the American people.
One of the questions we will be asking is how is the physician Medicare reimbursement plan, which is an essential part of any plan for health care over the next 10 years, how is it paid for? Does it add to the debt? We will be looking -- and I know the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire who is the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee already is looking -- at not just what happens in the first 5 years of this proposed bill but in the second 5 years and the 10 years after that, because our goal is to reduce the cost of health care, the cost of premiums to each of us and to our government. A preliminary look suggests that while the cost may go down to the government in the first 5 years, it might go up in the second 5 years as the plan is implemented.
Third, we want to look at the new taxes on small businesses we have been told about.
Next, we want to look at the provision in the bill which seems to say that an employer might have to pay 8 percent of his payroll as a penalty if the employer does not provide health care to his employees. Does that mean all employees? Does that mean full-time employees? Does that mean part-time employees? We want to read the bill. We want to know exactly what it says. We want to see a Congressional Budget Office estimate -- a formal estimate -- of what it costs.
There is in the bill a new government-run insurance plan. We have said before that our view on the Republican side -- and I know some Democrats have concern about this as well -- is the effect of a government-run insurance company -- some call it the government option -- is no option because if you are one of the 170 million or 180 million Americans who have health insurance through your employer, the combination of a bill such as this is you are more likely to lose your insurance and the government option is likely to be your only option. We will be asking that question and see what it costs.
There is a provision in the bill that expands Medicaid. This is the government-run program for the low-income we already have that has 60 million Americans in it. The State and the Federal Government share the cost of it. My preliminary understanding of this provision is, it increases the cost of the Medicaid expansion, which Governors all across the country are deeply concerned about, and it adds a provision to require that physicians be reimbursed for Medicaid services at the same level as Medicare, which would basically double the cost of the Medicaid expansion. How much of this will the States pay?
There are a number of questions to be asked, but the news of the day is this: The era of the 1,000-page bill is over. We have a new 2,000-page health care bill. We will be reading the bill, and we will be trying to understand exactly what it costs.
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator from Tennessee yield for a question, Madam President?
Mr. ALEXANDER. I will be glad to yield.
Mr. GREGG. A 1,000-page bill is pretty big. It is about this big, and a 2,000-page bill is about this big. We are going to find out when we see it printed. That probably weighs a lot, 4 or 5 bricks, 10 bricks maybe?
Mr. ALEXANDER. I don't know. The Senator from New Hampshire has a wide variety of experiences and may understand the weight of bricks better than I do. I just know the era of the 1,000-page bill is over. We have a 2,000-page bill, and we will need to read it.
I ask the Senator from New Hampshire how long should it take the Congressional Budget Office to provide a formal estimate of a 2,000-page bill, based upon his experience -- I ask through the Chair -- as former chairman of the Budget Committee and the ranking Republican member.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I say to the Senator from Tennessee, I presume it would be at least a week or maybe 10 days. I understand they are going to do an informal sort of "on the back of an envelope" estimate quickly. But the implications of this bill, 2,000 pages -- it is akin to dropping 10 bricks on our seniors, isn't it? Doesn't this basically wipe out Medicare Advantage and massively impact Medicare benefits and move those savings over to fund a brandnew entitlement?
Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. Our concern has been, with the bills we have seen so far, that a bill that is supposed to reduce costs actually raises the cost of premiums, cuts Medicare, and raises taxes. The new government insurance plan will cause millions to lose their employer-based insurance and become a part of the government option and, unless the physicians Medicare reimbursement payment is a part of the plan, it also adds to the debt.
Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will entertain one other question. The Senator, in his comments on this new 2,000-page piece of legislation, which started out at significantly less, made a point that I believe the last 5 years of this bill -- it is a 10-year bill and, of course, it is going to go on forever -- they basically start the taxes at day one, but they don't start the expenditures until year five. It turns out, as I believe the Senator said, the expenditures in the last 5 years exceed the income. So if you were to logically put this bill in a 10-year timeframe, where you had all the expenditures and income matched up, this bill is going to add a lot to the deficit. This is a $1 trillion to $2 trillion bill, and the deficit is going to go up a lot. That is common sense; is it not?
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. ALEXANDER. It seems to me it will.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. ALEXANDER. I am always glad to yield for a question by the assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. DURBIN. Since we are dealing with health care reform that addresses one-sixth of the American economy, does the Senator from Tennessee believe there should be a maximum number of pages the bill would entail?
Mr. ALEXANDER. That is a very good question. I saw the Senator from Illinois on the floor the other day saying: A 1,000-page bill, who cares about a 1,000-page bill? I don't think Americans like the idea of a 1,000-page bill. I think they will like even less a 2,000-page bill. I don't think we do comprehensive very well here.
I think what the American people want us to do, if I can say to the Senator from Illinois, is not have a comprehensive bill full of higher premiums, taxes, and surprises but to focus on reducing the cost of health care premiums and reducing the cost to the government and go step by step on things --
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. ALEXANDER. I am trying to answer his excellent question. -- go step by step to meet that goal, such as a provision that would allow small businesses to combine resources and offer their employees insurance, such as provisions that would get rid of junk lawsuits against doctors, which virtually everyone agrees drives up the costs.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for one more question?
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for an additional question?
Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes.
Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator recall -- and perhaps the Senator from Illinois recalls -- does the Senator recall, during the last Presidential campaign, when the President of the United States said there will be Republicans and Democrats sitting down together and there will be C-SPAN cameras? I wonder if the Senator knows the C-SPAN cameras are still waiting outside this room over there. Does the Senator recall that commitment? I wonder -- I wonder -- whatever happened to that campaign promise that the American people would know who is on the side of the pharmaceutical companies and who is on the side of the American people. If they came in now, it would be too late because they already cut a deal with the pharmaceutical companies in return for $80 billion. They got $100 million in positive ads for reform.
I wonder if the Senator from Tennessee recalls that commitment on the part of the President of the United States. I wonder if he might urge his colleague, the other Senator from Illinois, to get the C-SPAN cameras in there while these negotiations are going on.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Arizona for his excellent question. I am sure there is no one in this Chamber who more vividly remembers that promise than the Senator from Arizona. We all would like to know what is in this bill and what is going on behind closed doors.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for one more question, a very short question?
Mr. ALEXANDER. Only if --
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Before he does, Madam President --
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. SHAHEEN). The Senator from Tennessee has the floor.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Without yielding the floor, I certainly would be glad, if I may reclaim the floor -- I have the floor -- I will be glad to allow the Senator from California to say whatever she would like, if I can have consent to have the floor back.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate that. The Senator from Tennessee is the ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. I alert the Senate that time is running on the bill. It is 2 hours, equally divided.
Let me ask the Parliamentarian this question: How much time remains on the Interior appropriations bill, and how much time has the Republican side used to this moment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority still has 1 hour, and the minority has used 12 minutes.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Just so you know.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the chairman. I look forward to moving over there and working on the Interior appropriations bill. I think Senator McCain is here to speak about it. I was only, in an extravagant gesture of courtesy, trying to answer the question of the distinguished assistant Democratic leader from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for one more question? Will the Senator yield for one short question?
Mr. ALEXANDER. Knowing the Senator is a very able trial lawyer, it is only because I am courteous that I will do that. Of course I do.
Mr. DURBIN. Very good. Can the Senator from Tennessee tell me how many pages the Republican health care reform bill is?
Mr. ALEXANDER. The Republican health care reform bill, Madam President, if I may talk about it, has been offered in a series of proposals. The proposal for a small business health insurance program is less than 1,000 pages, by several hundred pages. What I think I will do is not take so much more of the Senator's time, but I will enumerate the proposals and give him the number of pages. While he is reading our proposals, I will read his, and we will see who gets through first. Of course, we will have to wait until they come out from behind closed doors with their bill.
I will get the small business proposal. I will get the proposal to end junk lawsuits against doctors. I will get the proposal to allow people to buy insurance across State lines, which will reduce the cost of insurance. I will get the proposal that would adjust tax incentives. There is a proposal that would also expand technology on which we have proposals on both sides of the aisle. So I will get five or six of the Republican proposals, most of which we hope will gain bipartisan support.
I see the assistant Democratic leader every day at the beginning of the day. Maybe we can even read them together, and then whenever his bill comes out from behind closed doors and we get the House bill, we can all read that 2,000-page bill.
I am going to accede to the wishes of the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, because I am her ranking minority member, and cease talking about the end of the era of the 1,000-page bill and let us get to Interior appropriations.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1649 - 21/12/2009, 16:12 | |
| meme Newsweek! December 21, 2009 A parody of LeadershipBy Robert SamuelsonWASHINGTON -- Barack Obama's quest for historic health care legislation has turned into a parody of leadership. We usually associate presidential leadership with the pursuit of goals that, though initially unpopular, serve America's long-term interests. Obama has reversed this. He's championing increasingly unpopular legislation that threatens the country's long-term interests. "This isn't about me," he likes to say, "I have great health insurance." But of course, it is about him: about the legacy he covets as the president who achieved "universal" health insurance. He'll be disappointed.- Spoiler:
Even if Congress passes legislation -- a good bet -- the finished product will fall far short of Obama's extravagant promises. It will not cover everyone. It will not control costs. It will worsen the budget outlook. It will lead to higher taxes. It will disrupt how, or whether, companies provide insurance for their workers. As the real-life (as opposed to rhetorical) consequences unfold, they will rebut Obama's claim that he has "solved" the health care problem. His reputation will suffer.
It already has. Despite Obama's eloquence and command of the airwaves, public suspicions are rising. In April, 57 percent of Americans approved of his "handling of health care" and 29 percent disapproved, reports The Washington Post-ABC News poll; in the latest survey, 44 percent approved and 53 percent disapproved. About half worried that their care would deteriorate and that health costs would rise.
These fears are well-grounded. The various health care proposals represent atrocious legislation. To be sure, they would provide insurance to 30 million or more Americans by 2019. People would enjoy more security. But even these gains must be qualified. Some of the newly insured will get healthier, but how many and by how much is unclear. The uninsured now receive 50 percent to 70 percent as much care as the insured. The administration argues that today's system has massive waste. If so, greater participation in the waste by the newly insured may not make them much better off.
The remaining uninsured may also exceed estimates. Under the Senate bill, they would total 24 million in 2019, reckons Richard Foster, chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. But a wild card is immigration. From 1999 to 2008, about 60 percent of the increase in the uninsured occurred among Hispanics. That was related to immigrants and their children (many American born). Most illegal immigrants aren't covered by Obama's proposal. If we don't curb immigration of the poor and unskilled -- people who can't afford insurance -- Obama's program will be less effective and more expensive than estimated. Hardly anyone mentions immigrants' impact, because it seems insensitive.
Meanwhile, the health care proposals would impose massive costs. Remember: The country already faces huge increases in federal spending and taxes or deficits because an aging population will receive more Social Security and Medicare. Projections made by the Congressional Budget Office in 2007 suggested federal spending might rise almost 50 percent by 2030 as a share of the economy (gross domestic product). Since that estimate, the recession and massive deficits have further bloated the national debt.
Obama's plan might add almost another $1 trillion in spending over a decade -- and more later. Even if this is fully covered, as Obama contends, by higher taxes and cuts in Medicare reimbursements, these revenues could have been used to cut the existing deficits. But the odds are that the new spending isn't fully covered, because Congress might reverse some Medicare reductions before they take effect. Projected savings seem "unrealistic," says Foster. Similarly, the legislation creates a voluntary long-term care insurance program that's supposedly paid by private premiums. Foster calls it "unsustainable," suggesting a need for big federal subsidies.
Obama's overhaul would also change how private firms insure workers. Perhaps 18 million workers could lose coverage and 16 million gain it, as companies adapt to new regulations and subsidies, estimates The Lewin Group, a consulting firm. Private insurers argue that premiums in the individual and small group markets, where many workers would end up, might rise an extra 25 percent to 50 percent over a decade. The administration and the Congressional Budget Office disagree. The dispute underlines the bills' immense uncertainties. As for cost control, even generous estimates have health spending growing faster than the economy. Changing that is the first imperative of sensible policy.
So Obama's plan amounts to this: partial coverage of the uninsured; modest improvements (possibly) in their health; sizable budgetary costs worsening a bleak outlook; significant, unpredictable changes in insurance markets; weak spending control. This is a bad bargain. Benefits are overstated, costs understated. This legislation is a monstrosity; the country would be worse for its passage. What it's become is an exercise in political symbolism: Obama's self-indulgent crusade to seize the liberal holy grail of "universal coverage." What it's not is leadership.
checkTextResizerCookie('article_body');
|
| | | | Contenu sponsorisé
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise | |
| |
| | | | | | Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise | |
|
Sujets similaires | |
|
| | Permission de ce forum: | Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
| |
| |
| |
|
