Congresswoman Michele Bachmann Conference Call Recap
Many readers of the Conservatives with Attitude! blog took part in a very unique and rare opportunity last night following the President’s address to Congress. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, (R-MN), held a teleconference call 15 minutes after the President finished his speech for National Bloggers from around the Country from her office on the Hill.
An invitation was extended to me from her office to include others on the call who may have an interest in what Ms. Bachmann’s response and reaction would be. I thought this would be an excellent opportunity to “give back” something to our loyal readers here to be part of the “inside baseball” part of politics and instead of reading about the call, they were able to take part in it.
It’s one of the things that makes this blog so great, and why we are the most visited, and most influential political blog in the entire State of New Jersey; from our live events, (which no other blog does), to hosting Political Briefings and teleconference calls, (which no other blog does); our readers don’t just read the news after it happens, they get to be a part of the news as it happens!
And our readers responded to the opportunity, as we totally dominated the question and answer portion of the conference call, to the point where Ms. Bachmann said after yet another person identified themselves from being from New Jersey and representing Conservatives with Attitude!; “Wow, another one, I love you guys from Conservatives with an Attitude!”, and gave a special thanks to us at the end of the call, “especially the contingent from New Jersey, you guy’s were awesome.”
The call itself was great, and lasted close to 45 minutes, where Congresswoman Bachmann gave her thoughts on the speech, saying she thought it would backfire and that the content of the speech were filled with fabrications and falsehoods. She talked about the voting process for the Bill and about the Public Option being the deal breaker for many from both the left and the right, but for different reasons.
I hope that those on the call enjoyed it and thought it was worthwhile and perhaps we can put something like this together again.
If you are reading this and happened to be on the call, it would be great if you would include your thoughts on the call and what you thought about the speech itself and Ms. Bachmann’s response.
I participated in the call and thank you Michael for the opportunity. I think that Congresswoman Bachmann is an articulate and thoughtful advocate for the Conservative approach to health care reform. The Republican Party should be putting her front and center more often.
As for the speech, I fear the casual observer who is not steeped in the proper role of government in our Republic, and is not immersed in the issues to spot the inconsistencies in the speech will find it effective. The hard work begins now.
September 10th, 2009 at 8:27 amMichael:
CWA has always lead the way. Other sites sit on their brains, while the CWA contributors are out on the firing line. Let us all keep up the good work.
“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” Thomas Jefferson
September 10th, 2009 at 8:55 amSounds like it was a great call Michael. I’m sorry I was not able to participate. I really hope that she and the Republicans are able to overcome all of the falsehoods brazenly spouted during last night’s Big Lie, I mean Big Speech. As Mr. Funt suggests, I think it is going to be a very difficult fight.
September 10th, 2009 at 9:20 amWhy is it never brought out that $800 Billion of private health insurance premiums (35%) are not used for health care by the few for profit insurance companies controlling 95% of the market? Some activities do not lend themselves to profit goals,( he says – risking being kicked out of CWA.)
September 10th, 2009 at 9:35 amThank you Mike for putting this call together. What an honor it was to speak with Congresswoman Bachmann and get her immediate reaction to the speech minutes after it was over.
I agree with the Congresswoman that the speech will do more harm then good for the Democrats and will backfire.
September 10th, 2009 at 9:41 amSkip:
Why is it your business how the insurance companies spend their money?
If you are a policyholder and they are breaching the contract, sue them.
If you are a shareholder, hold the board accountable at the annual meeting.
Otherwise, it is nobody else’s business what the insurance companies do with their money.
As Conservatives, we stand for FREEDOM….for EVERYONE, including insurance companies. It is nobody’s business how you spend your money – or how the insurance company spends its money. Period.
September 10th, 2009 at 9:42 amMissed my point – there is no choice when it comes to health care.
September 10th, 2009 at 9:50 amMike,
Thanks for arranging the call.
My question related to who is responsible or accountable when a government bureaucrat makes a mistake in administering the program. As it stands now under “Sovereign Immunity” no one is responsible. She stated that there is no mechanism in place in any of the current bills.
I think this is the crux of all of our issues, lack of accountability at all levels of government.
September 10th, 2009 at 10:10 amThank you Mike for the opportunity to be part of Congresswoman Bachmann’s conference call last night. She was outstanding! Learning about the voting process for the public option was interesting and informative.
One of the last things she stressed was that we cannot let up. All of us must continue to talk, blog, and contact our lawmakers.
September 10th, 2009 at 10:17 amJim:
Lack of accountability – for what?
Even if you could theoretically sue the bureaucrat who determines that your ailing parent/spouse/whoever should not receive health care once Obamacare passes, on what basis would you sue? How is such a bureaucrat not accountable?
The fact of the matter is that the whole point of this legislation is to limit the healthcare consumed by people who are very sick and near death. You may not be happy when the bureaucrat refuses to allow treatment – but the bureaucrat will just be following his mandate under the bill. He is not failing to be accounbtable – he is doing just what the legislation directs. The fault is in the legislation, not the bureaucrat.
That is why the whole notion of health care reform as conceived by the Democrats (and even the Republicans) needs to be scrapped. The fundamental issue is: who pays? We need to eliminate all of the incentives for third party payment systems, be they Medicare/Medicaid, or the Internal Revenue Code’s bias in favor of employer provided health plans.
He who pays the piper gets to call the tune. If the govenrment pays, the government decides what care you get. If the government pushes you into an HMO or other comprehensive insurance plan, the insurance company gets to decide.
Only if you save your own money though such vehicles as Medical Savings Accounts (which are sold in conjunction with catastrophic care policies) will individuals be both paying the bulk of the cost and therefore making the bulk of decisions. That is the goal that everyone claims to want to reach but are unable to achieve – because they insist on a third party payment mechanism. Such a goal is impossible under a third party payment system – and the Republicans would do well to be the first to acknowledge this, instead of pretending like they want to preserve Medicare and other similar government programs.
And another side benefit of reducing third party payment systems and having individuals pay their own way: when the payor and consumer are the same person, the consumer has a direct incentive to hold down costs of health care. When the payor and consumer are separated, as they are under third party payment systems, the consumer has no incentive to either negotiate lower prices, or to economize on the consumption choices he makes.
The Republican Party’s health care reform mantra should be: End Third Party Payment Systems.
September 10th, 2009 at 10:54 amSkip:
I find your response unintelligible. What is your point?
If insurance companies waste money (and I am not commenting on that one way or the other on whether they do), that is their business – and the business of their shareholders. How is it your business? Why do you think that, even if you are correct, you have the right to tell them how to better run their business?
September 10th, 2009 at 10:58 amWas there any discussion of Congressman Price’s plan (HR 3400)?
As for Skip, government regulation is the primary factor in the lack of choice. They place far too many restrictions and mandates for the market to function effectively. If you remember about a decade ago, NJ had a similar problem with automobile insurance. Once government got out of the way, competition exploded.
September 10th, 2009 at 11:03 am“The Republican Party’s health care reform mantra should be: End Third Party Payment Systems.”
100% in agreement, my brother!
September 10th, 2009 at 11:07 amNice job, guys. Sorry I missed this last night.
September 10th, 2009 at 11:11 amMr. Zuendt,
I know you frequently end your comments with quotes from liars such as the BJ Clinton quote regarding relations with Miss Lewinsky. Given the context of last night’s Presidential address, you are now loaded with example after example of lies. I humbly request that you just provide a link to the text of the speech and not actually repeat all the lies stated by President Obama.
This will greatly limit the wear on my down arrow key. Thank you.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:33 pmThat last comment was from me.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:34 pmEd Mazlish:
Whoa! Ed! I agree with you almost completely, the current proposal needs to be scrapped.
In my industry (environmental health and safety, and emergency response) we have government bean counters and bureaucrats who make health and safety decisions all the time based on cost benefit analyses, and political expediency.
I have personally witnessed bureaucrats making decisions that made people sick or have prevented them from getting the help they needed. The current situation in Sayreville and Cliffwood Beach where the government “lost” the information showing that the beaches were contaminated with lead comes to mind. “Lost” is their description not mine, check the public records. Turning our healthcare over to the same ilk would result in a worse situation.
“The fact of the matter is that the whole point of this legislation is to limit the healthcare consumed by people who are very sick and near death. You may not be happy when the bureaucrat refuses to allow treatment – but the bureaucrat will just be following his mandate under the bill. He is not failing to be accountable – he is doing just what the legislation directs. The fault is in the legislation, not the bureaucrat.” (Ed)
Translation: “I was Just following orders”. Sounds like what happened in Nazi Germany during WWII.
Again, I agree with you that the proposal needs to be completely scrapped in favor of the one you describe.
Bureaucrats making bad decisions then never having to pay the price…. isn’t that one of the root causes of our problems as a Nation?
Thanks
September 10th, 2009 at 2:56 pmThanks, Jim.
I don’t think a bureaucrat following rules is the same as Nazis following orders.
The role and function of a bureaucrat is to follow orders. That is the job responsibility. They are supposed to implement the policy decisions of legislators and department heads like a robot does. Are you suggesting that bureaucrats should have discretion as to which rules they follow and which they do not? I would be very uncomfortable giving them that discretion. I would rather repeal the regulations that gave rise to their existence than grant them any more discretion than is minimally necessary.
Congress regularly defaults on its responsibility to make difficult choices by punting to a bureaucracy. What you are saying in comment #17 above condones that abdication by Congress. I lay the blame at Congress’ feet: if they pass a terrible bill that has no other purpose than to ration health care, how can you blame the bureaucrat who merely implements that mission? The fault is Congress’ (and the President’s), not the bureaucrat’s.
Firing the bureaucrat – or suing him and then having him replaced – does NOTHING to alter the fundamental of the legislation. Health care reform is by its very design intended to reduce the amount of health care available, so that we can save money (as opposed to having doctors save lives). The fault is in the legislation, not in the ones who carried it out.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:23 pmEd Mazlish, I was about to agree whole-heatedly with your long rant on no 3rd party…and just self responsibility, but your personal ‘unintelligent’ brings me up short. There is no sense to stand reasoning when the opposition is also the judge.
You might concern yourself with including corporations…along with everyone. I hate to break this to you, but corporations are artificiale people embodied by hordes of lobbyists with only the profit motive, not what is best for our common good.
Then, ask why regulations were weakened over the past 25 years, resulting in our current financial crisis. Then, why not bankruptcy instead of socialism to the rescue?
Conservatism your way just benefits the profit centers, corporations given ‘life’ with laws a hundred years ago to encourage business growth, not subvert our society.
I’ll go with the Constitution, IKE’s warning, Buckley, and Goldwater.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:18 pmSkip:
I wrote “unintelligible,” not unintelligent. That means I did not understand what you meant.
Regarding corporations pursuing the profit motive over the (alleged) common good: that is a good thing. As long as they do not commit fraud, initiate force or otherwise injure people through acts of negligence, they should have the same rights as everyone else. A corporation is just a group of people who have gotten together in a profit seeking venture, who offer goods and services to the public on condition of limited liability. It could be done purely by contract, but state law recognized this long ago and formalized limited liability statutes.
As for the alleged weakening of regulations over the past 25 years: housing, banking, insurance and money (via the Fed) are the most regulated industries, both today and during the past 25 years. There was no “deregulation.” This financial crisis was caused by government social engineering that forced banks to make loans (through such things as extortion via the Community Reinvestment Act engaged in by community organizers at ACORN) to people who could never repay them – with the Fed printing money to artifically keep the boom going when credit started to dry up.
As to your comment about bankruptcy instead of socialism – I wish you would have had the ear of the Bush Administration, which launched us down this path to socialism that Obama is cashing in on fully.
If you want to go with the Constitution, you need to call for the abolition of the Fed, abolition of regulation (not complaints about faux “weakening” of regulation), and championing the profit motive as every American’s right to the pursuit of happiness.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:29 pmThanks. I’ve learned new stuff.
As Pogo said “……
September 10th, 2009 at 4:40 pmEd:
I know your arguments, and understand them, yes, I do agree, but the cases I was referring to were not as you inferred. My fault for not being specific enough.
I have been in 6 situations in the last 17 years where a government bureaucrat:
Did not or chose not to follow the law/regulation or policy and people were hurt/injured or the environment negatively impacted. All 6 situations were well documented and reported to the proper authorities at the highest levels, etc., BTW all 6 of them were under environmentally friendly Democratic Administrations. All 6 times the bureaucracy swept the situation under the rug, and no one was held accountable.
It was the absolute fault of the bureaucrat in all cases. All I am saying is that in a case as I described the bureaucrat should be held accountable through the legal system or something else. I am not the only Environmental Consultant with these horror stories.
I hope we can agree on this.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:17 pmDi Marco:
I am in the process of contacting Merriam-Webster and asking them to add an additional definition to the word lies; see THE GREAT OBAMA Healthcare Speech.
“My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you’ll join with me as we try to change it.” Barack Obama
September 10th, 2009 at 8:09 pmJim:
I understand what you are saying, and I share/empathize with your frustrations.
Bureacracies are by their nature not accountable. That is how they operate, whether governmental or not. Nobody is ever in charge, nobody is ever responsible. It is always a committee, or an internal policy, or something else that cannot be attributed to a particular individual.
For the businessman, the goal is: how do I succeed? For the bureaucrat, the goal is: how do I avoid blame?
The bureaucrat is not interested in success, yours or his: he is interested in escaping blame. That is the nature of the “stick” that is at the heart of government regulation. Regulators never know how to make things work, they know how to prevent things from working – and the theory (if you want to call it that) is that if they prophylcatically stop all behavior and all progress, they will somehow prevent the bad as well as the good.
It never works out that way, but that never stops them. The whole theory is predicated on a presumption of guilty until proven innocent – the burdens are always on the private actor, not the bureaucrat.
We should advocate repeal of the bureaucratic state, not more accountability for bureaucrats. We can no more make bureaucrats accountable than Obama can add 46 million people to the health insurance rolls without driving up costs or driving doctors, nurses and pharmaceutical companies out of business with strangulating regulations. The impossible can never work.
PS Good luck to you (and to Mr. Funt) on your campaigns. I have met you both at CWA breakfasts, and wanted to say here how much I admire you both for standing up and getting out there. Neither of you is a career politician – both of you are ordinary citizens trying to make things better. Bravo to you both, and thanks for having the courage to stand up and fight.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:52 am