Obama Health care promises

1. " Obama's Health care program will lower costs. Here the Huffington Post disagrees with the President. Insurance premiums have risen

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama told voters repeatedly during the health care debate that the overhaul legislation would bring down fast-rising health care costs and save them money. Now, he's hemming and hawing on that.

So far, the law he signed earlier this year hasn't had the desired effect. An analysis from Medicare's Office of the Actuary this week said that the nation's health care tab will go up – not down – through 2019 as a result of Obama's sweeping law, though the increase is modest.

Obama offered some caveats when asked in his news conference Friday about the apparent discrepancy between what he promised and what's actually happening so far. On several other topics, too, his rhetoric fell short of a full accounting."

2. OK so even the liberal Hufington Post is challenging whether Obamacare is lowering costs. What about our costs.. the premiums we pay.

"The Congressional Budget office says that yearly health insurance premiums are actually going to increase by about $2,300 each year as a result of the new law, but that estimate is probably far, far too low.


The truth is that rates are already shooting through the roof. Just consider the following excerpt from a recent article on Fox News….

Here is the terse reason CareFirst/Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Washington gave its subscribers for raising a monthly premium from $333 to $512 on a middle aged man who is healthy, is not a smoker and is not obese: “Your new rate reflects the overall rise in health care costs and we regret having to pass these additional costs on to you.” "

3. Doctors have been opting out of the Medicare system at an alarming rate lately as the system goes through a tumultuous year, leaving some accountants’ clients in a bind when they suddenly cannot get their medical bills paid.


Like what you see? Click here to sign up for WebCPA's daily newsletter to get the latest news and behind the scenes commentary you won't find anywhere else.

At the New York State Society of CPAs’ health care conference on Tuesday, Katherine Dunphy, director of congressional affairs at National Government Services, a major contractor for Medicare administrative services, described this nightmare scenario. While her company is not supposed to deal directly with Medicare patients, it often finds itself on the receiving end of calls anyway. Still, Dunphy noted that many Medicare patients do not take advantage of the appeals process offered by the program.

Dunphy mostly deals with doctor’s offices, which are having a hard time keeping up with the rapid changes in Medicare. The system is on its fourth physician fee schedule of the year, thanks to all the uncertainty and changes brought by the health care reform bill. Medicare has become a daunting system for many doctors' offices, and often not one that reimburses doctors quickly or highly.

While 97 percent of doctors still accept Medicare, according to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, problems with Medicare reimbursement rates have frustrated many physicians and their accounts receivable staff. New York State has the highest number of doctors of any state in the country opting out of the system, according to Dunphy: “Every day we’re getting calls from doctors who are saying, ‘I can’t keep up.’” She noted that in some hospitals on Manhattan’s East Side, it is difficult to find a doctor in certain practice specialties who accepts Medicare.

The Medical Society of the State of New York recently announced that 1,100 doctors had left the system, including the society’s own president, who is also boycotting private insurance plans."  http://www.webcpa.com/.

So medical costs continue to rise. You pay higher premiums, more uninsured Americans and illegal aliens are covered and enter the system, ands doctors are opting out of the system. I know as apart of the medicare system, I pay more for my insurance coverage than I did and have already lost one doctor who left his general practice to set up a boutique medical business where all his patients pay $5,000 annually just to be a part of the client list. The thinking is that soon this option won't be open to doctors forcing more and more to retire. One of the criticism of Obamacare was that it would become more and more restrictive in what treatments the government would authorize. How difficult is it to understand that more people in the system with fewer doctors and more costs with less revenue does not mean a better health care system.

Is it reasonable to believe that President Obama and his administration could not foresee this? If it is then we must assume that he is not fit to be President.  If President Obama knew that he was lying then clearly he is also not fit to be President.

Time to Talk

It has been a long and busy summer. But now we are getting into political season and it is time to do what I can to make some contribution to the debate of where this country is heading over the next two years. My view is that of a conservative but I will not deal in my opinion. I will merely give you the source material and let you make up your own mind. It is disturbing to me that the liberal pundits and media types seem to want to spend more time making personal attacks than debating the issues. To me this is a well orchestrated distraction. I am not taking the bait and neither should you you. Look at what's been promised and then look at what has been accomplished. Look at what was supposed to happen and what actually has happened. Your decision on whom to vote for should be based on who has the credibility to get us out of this mess. You must make yup your mind whether our political leaders are just incompetent or whether they have been purposefully being deceiving us for their own agenda. You can make the call. I do think Ben Stein had it right when he posed this paradoxical question.

"Fathom the odd hypocrisy that Obama wants every citizen to prove they are insured but people don't have to prove they are citizens."

Amnesty and our Border - Building a Constituency

CNN News, not Fox -- Obama is indeed transparent. Arizona probably forced him to show his hand a bit sooner than he would have liked.. like after the Amnesty bill was passed. Obama wasn't lying when he said illegal’s would not be able to get medical coverage under his ObamaCare plan. His simple fix is to make them all legal first... and could this have anything to do with slanting the vote in 2010 & 2012....?) Please click on this link to view the CNN segment from June 2007. It is important to understand the kind of elements that Congressional Democrats tried to include in this bill which in my mind exceeds the description Baynard gave it. Be wary of the next time around. This is still up on YouTube.
http://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/17260182/1610997888/name/ftc-vi26.wmv

Here’s another reason to support the Arizona law (which has been a Federal law for decades but Obama and the far left won’t tell you about this, check it out on Snopes or Google it and you will see. There are so many lies it’s impossible to tell all of them). Watch both of these, they are very disturbing! Click the link (s) at the bottom.
You have to look at these 2 video clips -- shocking ! According to the Border Patrol the public is being mislead as to WHO is coming into the US from Mexico. This IS THE TRUTH. as reported by WSBTV in Atlanta. (a reputable public news! Not 'Tea party' or any other special interest group!)





Video 1 http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438021/index.html


Video 2 http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438712/index.html



Watch before the video expires.

The Obama administration honestly believes that you the American public are stupid enough to support their efforts through government to control a good portion of your life. If you have studied this issue and you honestly believe this adminsitration is doing anything more than securing political control for Democrats for generations to come, then you are readily accepting the obvious very concerted decisions that are currently being made on the border.

I have said many times that the Obama administration is willing to sacrifice everything for their ideology. Study, look at the facts objectively, and come up with leaders that will ensure the next generation has something to thank us for.

Since the beginning of our second war with Iraq the left has been clobbering Bush for lying about Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction, which was the rationale for out attack on them. Conveniently forgotten was the fact that the majority of intelligence organizations the U.S. was collaborating with agreed that Hussein had them. Conveniently forgotten was the fact that liberal senators Kennedy, Kerry, and Clinton agreed with this assessment. And maybe most importantly is the critical fact that we can not say definitely that he did not have them.. we can only say we did not find them. That's a provable fact. Whether he destroyed some, moved some, had none, nobody can say for sure. So it is possible that Bush was correct to some degree based on the knowledge he had. Were there intelligence failures.. sure. Did they amount to a conspiracy to enable Bush and his team to attack Iraq.. probably not. If Bush pulled this off maybe he is brighter than all the leftist luminaries that insist he can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

I dredge up this ancient history as the result of my Sunday morning perusal of the paper where I noticed a very small article quoting Susan Bailey, president of the Texas Medical Association commenting on a study showing that Texas doctors were fleeing the Medicare system in "alarming rates". Bailey's direct quote: "This new data shows the Medicare system is beginning to implode. If Congress doesn't fix Medicare soon, there will be more and more doctors dropping out, and Congress' promise to provide medical care to seniors will be broken."

We have barely begun the implementation of Obama's Health Care program and already the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) is reneging on its assessment that the program in fact will not be deficit neutral and will increase the deficit another 150 billion. I guarantee this number will go up. We are also learning that we won't necessarily keep our own doctors because big companies like AT&T, John Deere and others have figured out it may be cheaper to pay the fines than insure their employees in compliance with the guidelines. Understand that we are only in the revenue collecting phase and that most benefits don't kick in until 1014.. This program is collect revenue for ten offer services for six... and it still WON"T balance to be deficit neutral.

Contrary to President Bush and the Iraq war, this lie is provable. It's called ideology at any price. And believe this, Obama's lie was from the beginning intended consequences for the ultimate prize, which is big government controlling our lives. Significantly, it is provable that government does a very bad job managing any business. So stop telling me how wonderful the plans are in Europe and how we need to emulate this model. The euro is dropping and the people are rioting. We need to wake up before we're doing the same. And that too is becoming provable with each day.

California and Greece and Easy Comparison

California is broke. California is broke as a result of too much spending and too little revenue to pay for it. In 1996 Californians voted 2 to 1 NOT to pay for health care and education for illegal immigrants. The 9th Circuit found this to be unconstitutional and so for the past 14 years California has paid by some conservative estimates 4 billion dollars a year for these services which amounts to a 50 billion dollar problem that is the difference now between solvency and a bankrupt California. (See data below) Maybe if Meg Whitman gets elected she will have better luck than the present Governor. Regardless in a very liberal entitlement oriented state Whitman will have a tough time changing the culture. That is precisely what is happening in Greece and will down the line happen in the U.S. You simply can not continue spending without some negative ramifications. The spending from the Obama administration is insane (Einstein's definition - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results).

The European socialist system is failing in Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland, France, and the United Kingdom. Why then must we hold these countries up as a model of where we want to go? Any economist that supports this sort of fiscal irresponsibility is an idealog with a political agenda that is not in the best interest of the U.S.

If you read this blog, I don't ask you to believe me. I simply ask that you study and listen and base your opinions on facts and not the talking heads in the media bombarding you with information that is many cases provably false.

Supporting data
1. Analysis of the latest Census data indicates that California's illegal immigrant population is costing the state's taxpayers more than $10.5 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration. Even if the estimated tax contributions of illegal immigrant workers are subtracted, net outlays still amount to nearly $9 billion per year. The annual fiscal burden from those three areas of state expenditures amounts to about $1,183 per household headed by a native-born resident. (http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersffec)

Arizona and Their Immigration Solution

Arizona HB 2162
On April 30, the Arizona legislature passed, and Governor Brewer signed, House Bill 2162, which modified the law that had been signed a week earlier, with the amended text stating that "prosecutors would not investigate complaints based on race, color or national origin."[25] The new text also states that police may only investigate immigration status incident to a "lawful stop, detention, or arrest", lowers the original fine from a minimum of $500 to a maximum of $100, and changes incarceration limits from 6 months to 20 days for first-time offenders.[22]
Arizona is the first state with such a law like the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.[5] Prior law in Arizona, and the law in most other states, does not mandate that law enforcement personnel ask about the immigration status of those they encounter.[12] Many police departments discourage such inquiries for fear that immigrants will not report crimes or cooperate in other investigations.[12]

There are two important differences in this bill and what has happened before in Arizona. 1. The police officer is authorized to inquire as to an individuals immigration status after the same sort of police investigation that has previously existed.. So the initial contact REMAINS THE SAME. The second change is that the police officer can take the suspect to jail. Previously they turned them over to ICE.

The second change is the one that should have created the debate. Many of the police departments do not have the facilities to handle the potential large numbers of suspected illegal immigrants.

As usual the Federal government has failed to do their part which precipitated this crisis.

We should focus on the complete lack of honesty in the US media in accurately reporting the implications of this bill. The media does have the responsibility for inflaming an already very passionate interest. The US government has done a pathetic job in seeking a solution. How the former governor of Arizona and now Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano could possibly say in the face of out of control crime along the border and the recent deaths in the Tucson area that the border has never been more secure, is ludicous.

We are in a sad state if our law enforcement can not ascertain the identity of a suspect. But this is not about reason, this is about agenda. And clearly that agenda is not in the best interests of the majority of Americans. Our leaders are motivated what they think best for us as they continually marginalize our critcisms.

If you are interested in maintaining some semblance of what America was envisioned by the founders that wrote our constitution, vote this November for the Republican, Democrat, or independent that will represent your conservative view.

Transparency is the Lie

On numerous occasions our President has lectured us about the need for civility and transparency. But often not even 30 minutes passes before Mr. Obama is blasting the "tea baggers". This is a term some of you may be too young to understand but suffice it to say that it is an extremely offensive sexual reference that I just don't believe has slipped by the likes of Rahm Emanuel. This administration fails to understand that marginalizing dissent and criticism only serves to motivate the dissenters. I sincerely hope that our President will continue on his present course and will continue to insult his detractors.

As to transparency, I have provided the memorandum on the White House website.

1. "Transparency and Open Government
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies
SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government
My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.
Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.
Government should be participatory. Public engagement enhances the Government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge. Executive departments and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to participate in policy making and to provide their Government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public input on how we can increase and improve opportunities for public participation in Government.
Government should be collaborative. Collaboration actively engages Americans in the work of their Government. Executive departments and agencies should use innovative tools, methods, and systems to cooperate among themselves, across all levels of Government, and with nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals in the private sector. Executive departments and agencies should solicit public feedback to assess and improve their level of collaboration and to identify new opportunities for cooperation.
I direct the Chief Technology Officer, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Administrator of General Services, to coordinate the development by appropriate executive departments and agencies, within 120 days, of recommendations for an Open Government Directive, to be issued by the Director of OMB, that instructs executive departments and agencies to take specific actions implementing the principles set forth in this memorandum. The independent agencies should comply with the Open Government Directive.
This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register.
BARACK OBAMA

As to transparency - What do liberal media sources have to say?

2. CNN - February 2, 2009.

The story - "All this week, we're taking aim at one word and one theme. It is something the president has promised and we're holding him to it: transparency. If it's more than an updated campaign slogan, the president might start by looking at his own Cabinet picks.
Both Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Health and Human Services nominee Tom Daschle were delinquent in paying tens of thousands of dollars each in back taxes. That's more than some people earn in a year, let alone owe in back taxes. Neither man paid up in full until after they were approached to join the Obama administration.
I wonder how many Americans would avoid paying a six-figure tax bill until they were up for a new job? For that matter, how many people have owed more than $100,000 dollars without the IRS coming to haul off anything that wasn't bolted down -- like the car and driver Daschle forgot to pay for."

3. From the University of Pennslyvania law blog On the newly appointed Deficit Commission - very slick non transparent maneuvering:

"The Commission’s one possible salvation might come from its ability to convene secret deliberations, out of the usual media glare that can exacerbate partisan tendencies.

The Obama Administration may be – ironically – banking on some secrecy to solve one of the nation’s most challenging domestic problems. Despite the administration’s overall emphasis on governmental transparency, the executive order establishing the Deficit Commission does not itself say anything about whether the Commission's deliberations must be open to the public.

Some government commissions are covered by the Government in the Sunshine Act, which requires that all their proceedings are open to the public. But that Act only applies when the majority of a commission’s members have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. With more of the Deficit Commission’s members appointed by the House and Senate leadership than the President, the Government in Sunshine Act does not apply.

The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requires meetings of advisory committees to be fully open to the public. Being advisory, the Deficit Commission would fall under FACA, which applies to “any … commission … which is … established or utilized by the President … in the interest of obtaining advice or recommendations for the President.”

4. New York Times March 14, 2010 - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/us/politics/15open.html

"The report found that despite Mr. Obama’s directive for agencies to take “affirmative steps” to make more information public through the Freedom of Information Act, many agencies do not appear to have made any concrete changes. It also found little indication that most federal agencies were releasing information any more frequently or rejecting public requests for information any less often.
Thomas S. Blanton, the director of the National Security Archive, which is affiliated with George Washington University, said that in making good on Mr. Obama’s pledge to operate the most transparent administration in history, “agencies are talking the talk, but few are yet walking the walk.”

5. LA Times - July 21, 2009 - http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/21/nation/na-tarp21

TARP watchdog cites lack of transparency in Obama administration
Neil Barofsky's stinging report on a survey of banks' use of bailout funds reveals Treasury's refusal to give, or seek, answers. Critics say the White House hasn't met pledges of more open government.
July 21, 2009Tom Hamburger and Peter Nicholas
WASHINGTON — As the watchdog of the government's massive bailout of the financial sector, Neil M. Barofsky had a simple question: What had the nation's banks done with all their bailout money?
Can't be answered, said the Treasury Department, because of the way banks move money internally. The department declined to put the question to the banks.

6. MSNBC - Tues., June 16, 2009 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/

The Obama administration is fighting to block access to names of visitors to the White House, taking up the Bush administration argument that a president doesn't have to reveal who comes calling to influence policy decisions.
Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to introduce a new era of transparency to Washington, and despite two rulings by a federal judge that the records are public, the Secret Service has denied msnbc.com's request for the names of all White House visitors from Jan. 20 to the present. It also denied a narrower request by the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sought logs of visits by executives of coal companies.
Updated: CREW says it filed suit Tuesday against the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Secret Service. Here's a copy of CREW's complaint.
Story continues below ↓

7. Huffington Post - March 16, 2010
Obama's Broken Promise: Federal Agencies Not More Transparent Under Obama Administration

WASHINGTON — One year into its promise of greater government transparency, the Obama administration is more often citing exceptions to the nation's open records law to withhold federal records even as the number of requests for information declines, according to a review by The Associated Press of agency audits about the Freedom of Information Act.
Among the most frequently cited reasons for keeping records secret: one that Obama specifically told agencies to stop using so frequently. The Freedom of Information Act exception, known as the "deliberative process" exemption, lets the government withhold records that describe its decision-making behind the scenes.
Obama's directive, memorialized in written instructions from the Justice Department, appears to have been widely ignored.
Major agencies cited the exemption at least 70,779 times during the 2009 budget year, up from 47,395 times during President George W. Bush's final full budget year, according to annual reports filed by federal agencies. Obama was president for nine months in the 2009 period.
The government's track record under the Freedom of Information Act is widely considered a principal measurement of how transparently it makes decisions. When Obama promised last year to be more open he said doing so "encourages accountability through transparency," and said: "My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government."
In a statement Tuesday during Sunshine Week, when news organizations promote open government and freedom of information, Obama noted the release of White House visitor logs and federal data online in recent months said his administration was recommitted "to be the most open and transparent ever."
"We are proud of these accomplishments, but our work is not done," Obama said. "We will continue to work toward an unmatched level of transparency, participation and accountability across the entire administration."
Also Tuesday, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and White House Counsel Bob Bauer urged agencies to improve their handling of information requests and assess whether they are devoting the resources needed to respond to requests promptly and cooperatively.
The AP's review of annual Freedom of Information Act reports filed by 17 major agencies found that the administration's use of nearly every one of the law's nine exemptions to withhold information from the public increased during fiscal year 2009, which ended last October.

8. LA Times - March 21, 2010

A little secret about Obama's transparency
The current administration, challenged by the president to be the most open, is now denying more Freedom of Information Act requests than Bush did.
TOP OF THE TICKET
March 21, 2010By Andrew Malcolm
The Democratic administration of Barack Obama, who denounced his predecessor, George W. Bush, as the most secretive in history, is now denying more Freedom of Information Act requests than the Republican did.
Transparency and openness were so important to the new president that on his first full day in office, he dispatched a much-publicized memo saying: "All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open government. The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA......But why make such a big campaign deal over a previous administration's secrecy when you're going to end up being even more secretive?
On March 16 to mark annual Sunshine Week, designed to promote openness in government, Obama applauded himself by issuing a statement:
"As Sunshine Week begins, I want to applaud everyone who has worked to increase transparency in government and recommit my administration to be the most open and transparent ever."
However, a new study out March 15 by George Washington University's National Security Archive finds less than one-third of the 90 federal agencies that process such FOIA requests have made significant changes in their procedures since Obama's 2009 memo."

Transparency is simply one example of a concerted and very well planned strategy to say one thing and do something very different. In Obama's world the agenda is everything. What you have to do or say is merely secondary. And when he states that he plans to fundamentally change America, he clearly means it.

But will you like it?

They Don't Get It For a Reason

I remember this last summer in Madison Wisconsin sitting around a table outside a fine restaurant on a cool evening with some of my closest friends on the Roadshow. The conversation was light as we jumped from topic to topic. I knew it was just a matter of time before the conversation went to politics and Sarah Palin. Initially, the criticism centered on her lack of international credentials and failure to be convincing on a national stage with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric. For my money these are all fair points and can be debated within the context of the campaign.. namely a head to head comparison with Joe Biden. For all of Sarah's shortcomings it is my opinion that for many Americans Joe Biden has more drawbacks. Bidens ability to tell the truth and his proclivity for boneheaded comments and gaffs are certainly relevant. As the debate intensified, immediately the attacks on Palin went personal. I looked at my friends and asked why they felt the need to trash her as a person instead of focusing on her political philosophy. They backed off unable to defend trashing someone in an effort to discredit their politics. Everyone at that table was pretty smart, pretty well informed, and good people. So why within this narrow context do liberals go nuts when they see Palin?

I submit that the talking heads on the right and left miss the point. Just as the liberals denigrate the Tea-baggers and their movement, the moderate wing of the Republican party views Palin and her supporters and hicks, trailer trash and NASCAR beer guzzlers. If you can marginalize someone or something, they or it are certainly less threatening. Results in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts and the sinking liberal polls are making this process of marginalization a bit more difficult. Sarah Palin is more popular than ever. Why?

In my judgment the answer is pretty basic and actually has more to do with personal conduct than political philosophy. Americans are desperately trying to find leaders that will tell them the truth and not try to double deal, saying one thing and doing another. More than ever this is the kiss of death for a politician. People are willing to trust Palin to do the right thing because they believe and do trust her. In a head to head campaign with Biden she would crush him because of his record and propensity to say dumb things. Palin would be folksy, straight forward, and probably simplistic. It would be no contest and Biden would be embarrassed.

For all the experience Joe Biden has I would sooner trust Sarah Palin to learn the job surrounded by good advisors and most importantly to make the right decisions. I would love to see a Romney-Palin ticket and I don't care that she has already run once. Just don't lie to me anymore. You will see the generation of Dodd, Frank, Reid, Pelosi pass into political oblivion because they have arrogantly squandered their political credibility with all they have done. It is too bad because in all this mess there were some good ideas that could have been advanced in a bi-partisan climate. By the way when the Republicans held all the power they were just as arrogant and just as paralyzed as the Democrats have been. You remember the Republicans suffered significant defeats as a consequence. Marginalizing your political opponents today and ignoring the American people is a certain course for repeating history.

Obama and C-Span

Some of my new favorite things in life are You Tube and C-Span. They are our impartial window into our government and the very ugly process of governing. It is important for us to understand how these systems work and how they can help us make more informed decisions. When President Obama promised multiple times to air the negotiating process for Health Care on C-Span it definitely resonnated with the American Public. Now that Obama has reneged on this pledge, C-Span has turned up the heat. "C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb wrote to leaders in the House and Senate Dec. 30 urging them to open 'all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings,' to televised coverage on his network.
'The C-SPAN networks will commit the necessary resources to covering all of the sessions LIVE and in their entirety,' he wrote. " (Fox News). The last thing in the world President Obama and the democrats want is transparency on this issue. But this lie will come back to haunt them, if we remember.

Here is the reprint from Wikipedia on C-Span and their history.

"C-SPAN (pronounced /si.spæn/, see-span), an abbreviation of Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network, is an American cable television network owned and operated by the cable industry. It airs non-stop coverage of government proceedings and public affairs programming. C-SPAN does not accept outside advertising; the only commercials aired are for its own programming and products.
C-SPAN operates three television channels, one radio station and several websites that provide streaming media including archives of many C-SPAN programs. The television networks are:
C-SPAN which provides uninterrupted live coverage of the House of Representatives. Also airs Washington Journal live every morning. C-SPAN2 which provides live coverage of the United States Senate. Besides its uninterrupted live coverage of the Senate it airs Book TV on weekends (branded Book TV on C-SPAN2). C-SPAN3 which features other uninterrupted live public affairs events and airs a large amount of archived historical programming branded as C-SPAN3

History.

All three channels also air events such as Presidential press conferences and speeches, as well as other government meetings such as Federal Communications Commission hearings and Pentagon press conferences. State events such as the Illinois Senate trial of former Governor Rod Blagojevich was simulcast from Illinois' state public affairs channel. Other state events include Governors' State of the State addresses. International events such as British House of Commons meetings are from The UK's BBC Parliament, and Canadian government events and shows from Canada's CPAC are also occasionally aired. Several non-government public affairs events are also featured. Channel usage for all of these events vary by date depending on availability.
The bulk of C-SPAN's operations are located on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., but they also maintain archives in West Lafayette, Indiana at the Purdue Research Park under the direction of Professor Robert X. Browning.
Brian Lamb, C-SPAN's chairman and CEO, conceived of C-SPAN while working at Cablevision, a cable industry trade magazine, as their Washington D.C. bureau chief. C-SPAN was created as a cable-industry financed, non-profit network for televising sessions of the U.S. Congress and other public affairs event and policy discussions. Bob Rosencrans, a cable industry pioneer, was alone in providing the initial seed funding of $25,000 to start up C-SPAN.[1] It receives no funding from any government source, has no contract with the government, and does not sell sponsorships or advertising. It strives for neutrality and a lack of bias in its public affairs programming.
C-SPAN first went on the air on March 19, 1979, broadcasting a speech by then-congressman Al Gore. C-SPAN2, a spin-off network, covers all live sessions of the U.S. Senate and went on the air on June 2, 1986, with the original channel then focusing on the House. The latest spin-off, C-SPAN3, began broadcasting on January 22, 2001, and shows other government-related live events along with historical programming from C-SPAN's archives.
On October 9, 1997, C-SPAN launched C-SPAN Radio, which broadcasts on WCSP 90.1 FM in Washington, D.C.. The radio station, which is also available on XM and was on Sirius satellite radio from 2002-2006, covers similar events as its sister TV networks, often simulcasting their programming.
All three video channels, plus the radio channel, are globally available through streaming media via the C-SPAN web site. Additionally, some programs are archived on the Internet for weeks or for longer times.
On February 12, 2003, C-SPAN launched the Amos B. Hostetter Distance Learning Program with the University of Denver. Steve Scully, Political Editor and Chair of Communication, instructs the course from the C-SPAN center in Washington, D.C. and features prominent guests in politics and journalism who can field questions live to students in Denver over 1,500 miles away. Soon after, the program was also expanded to Pace University in New York.
C-SPAN also provides unedited, commercial-free coverage of campaign events, both on its weekly "Road to the White House" program and at its dedicated politics website, C-SPAN Politics.[2]

Organization

Uncommonly for a television network, C-SPAN is operated as a non-profit organization by the National Cable Satellite Corporation, whose board of directors consists primarily of representatives of the largest cable companies. C-SPAN accepts no advertising; instead, it receives nearly all its funding from subscriber fees charged to cable and DBS operators. Contrary to popular perception, C-SPAN receives no funding from government sources.

Coverage

In addition to live coverage of House and Senate proceedings and local and general elections, the three channels air government hearings, press conferences and meetings of various political, media, and non-profit organizations; book discussions, interviews, and occasionally proceedings of the Parliament of Canada, Parliament of the United Kingdom (usually Prime Minister's Questions and the State Opening of Parliament) and other governments when they discuss matters of importance to viewers in the U.S. Similarly, the networks will sometimes carry news reports from around the world when major events occur — for instance, they carried CBC Television coverage of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Newscasts and other broadcasts in foreign languages are dubbed into English. C-SPAN also carries CBC coverage during events that impact Canadians, such as the Canadian federal elections, the death and state funeral of Pierre Trudeau, and the 2003 North America blackout.
C-SPAN has submitted requests to air live United States Supreme Court proceedings, but has always been denied camera access. However, the network has aired audio tapes of the Court in session on significant cases and has covered individual Supreme Court Justices' speaking engagements.
C-SPAN is the only cable channel that covers the Republican, Libertarian, and Democratic presidential nominating convention in their entirety. Following the deaths of Ronald Reagan in 2004, Rosa Parks in 2005 and Gerald Ford in 2006, C-SPAN featured live, uninterrupted coverage of the visitors who came to the Capitol Rotunda to pay their final respects. The network also provided coverage of Lady Bird Johnson's funeral in Stonewall, Texas. In 2008, C-SPAN gave coverage of Hurricane Gustav through New Orleans' NBC affiliate, WDSU, as well as Hurricane Ike coverage via Houston's CBS affiliate, KHOU.
Additionally, C-SPAN simulcasts NASA Space Shuttle mission launches and landings live, using the footage and audio from NASA TV.

C-SPAN and the Internet

All of C-SPAN's live feeds are streamed free of charge on its World Wide Web site in both Real Media and Windows Media formats. Selected C-SPAN programs are archived for the general public on its website for at least two weeks, while others remain permanently accessible. C-SPAN has exclusive rights to all recordings and may charge from $30 to $45 for DVD copies of programs.[3]
In August 2007, C-SPAN unveiled a new "C-SPAN Video Library" webpage,[4] which will eventually provide free access to all of its past programs--including Congressional proceedings, hyperlinked to corresponding Congressional Record entries--that are not otherwise subject to copyright. In August 2008, C-SPAN announced that an embeddable video player would be part of a "convention hub" website that will track convention coverage by bloggers and social media.[5]

C-SPAN and copyright

On March 7, 2007 C-SPAN liberalized its copyright policy for current, future, and past coverage of any official events sponsored by Congress and any federal agency and now allows for non-commercial copying, sharing, and posting of C-SPAN video on the Internet, with attribution.[6] C-SPAN considers video coverage of the floor proceedings of the U.S. House and Senate to be in the public domain.[7]
Prior to this change, C-SPAN engaged in numerous actions to stop parties from making unauthorized uses of their content online including cases where the footage is the House and Senate proceedings. For example, Dem Bloggers received a take down request for clips they had posted.[8] In May 2006, C-SPAN requested the removal of the Stephen Colbert performance at the White House Correspondent's Dinner from YouTube while allowing it to remain on Google Video,[9] causing concern from web bloggers.[10]
Websites such as metavid and voterwatch.org make House and Senate video records freely available. C-SPAN contested metavid usage of C-SPAN video which resulted in metavid taking down portions of the archive which were produced with C-SPAN's cameras while maintaining an archive of government produced content.[11]
On December 14, 2006 C-SPAN wrote an open letter to Speaker Designate Nancy Pelosi requesting control over the cameras that record floor proceedings. Although C-SPAN airs the transmission, they do not have control over the cameras, in either body, themselves; they are controlled by the respective body of Congress.[12] The request was denied.[13]

Other controversies

Although C-SPAN states its commitment to providing politically balanced programming, C-SPAN has been criticized by progressive organizations for an alleged bias toward conservatives.[14] A study released by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) argued that C-SPAN's morning call-in show, Washington Journal, favored Republicans as guests over Democrats by a two-to-one margin during a six-month period in 2005.[15] A 2009 C-SPAN survey reported that its audience included almost equal numbers of liberals and conservatives, with 31% describing themselves as "liberal" compared to 28% calling themselves "conservative".[16]
In 2004, C-SPAN intended to broadcast a speech by Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt adjacent to a speech by Holocaust denier David Irving, who had unsuccessfully sued Lipstadt for libel in the United Kingdom four years earlier. Critics including the Anti-Defamation League decried C-SPAN's use of the word "balance" to describe its plan to cover both.[17] C-SPAN claimed the adjacent broadcasts would pair arguments of both plaintiff and defendant. However, once Lipstadt closed media access to her speech, C-SPAN canceled the broadcasts of both.[18]" Wikipedia.com

Some Ancient History

There is certainly historical precedent for interest groups manipulating the political process for gain and unfortunately negative repercussions for us, the people. Over the coming months I want to make the argument that you have no basis for accepting as truth facts that are generated by the folks in Washington DC. I am not promoting anarchy... I am promoting responsible skepticism that will enable you to make your own decisions.

Remember back to the 1940’s "Here's how to smoke all you want. If you really enjoy smoking, yet feel you smoke too much, you don't have to cut down and deprive yourself of smoking pleasure! Follow the lead of thousands of others - switch to new Julep Cigarettes. Smoke all you want without unpleasant symptoms of over-smoking! A smoking miracle? Yes, it's the triple miracle of mint. (1) Your mouth doesn't get smoke-weary! (2) Your throat doesn't get that harsh, hacking feeling! (3) Your breath avoids tobacco-taint! Get Juleps today - get more joy out of smoking!"Source: "Truth in Advertising Gallery"http://www.chickenhead.com/truth/index.html. Remember Chesterfield in the 1950s "AND NOW - CHESTERFIELD FIRST TO GIVE YOU SCIENTIFIC FACTS IN SUPPORT OF SMOKING."Small Print: "A responsible consulting organization reports a study by a competent medical specialist and staff on the effects of smoking Chesterfields...'It is my opinion that the ears, nose, throat and accessory organs of all participating subjects examined by me were not adversely affected in the six-month period by smoking the cigarettes provided." Source: "Truth in Advertising Gallery"http://www.chickenhead.com/truth/index.html

In 1912 Dr. Isaac Alder presents the first strong link between smoking and lung cancer. And in 1942 the Lancet publishes a paper by researcher L.M. Johnston describing addiction for the first time. So the information was there but it was not easy for the public to access. If fact it was far easier to keep smoking and to rationalize that the "scientific studies" must have credibility or someone would step forward. There is no doubt in my mind that at least some politicians knew that smoking was killing people; however, it was expedient to keep quiet. Whether it was the tobacco lobby or trading political support, you lost and they won. My Mother smoked for 53 years and died from related heart problems exacerbated by lung cancer which she miraculously beat. Maybe the outcome would have been the same, but it would have been nice if she had made her life decisions based on facts not lies.

You know the history of smoking advertisements. The companies had to place warnings on their packages, more studies revealed that smoking was a major contributor to early death, and smoking rates began to drop. The tobacco companies now market to third world countries. I am certain when the mass media and the internet catch up that this overseas marketing will certainly enhance our image overseas.

Do you believe that the U.S. Government was concerned about your health or the burden of paying for your bad choices. I do believe that there are honest people in government. I also believe that if political expediency requires a legislator to look the other way, that's a no brainer that historically has happened over and over again.

The Purpose of this Blog

In recent years the daily bombardment of misinformation is maddening at the very least, making even the most optimistic individual wonder where the truth is on any given subject. Yes technology has exacerbated the problem with pontificating experts on every media outlet. However, there is hope as these information outlets now have every factoid thrown out by every talking head immortalized for your consideration. Now with You Tube the archive will show you every little gem from the past that now in the present has been conveniently forgotten and emphatically denied in the defence of the agenda being sold to us. The question is whether we have become so jaundiced and confused that we are not listening. At the very least we should remember how to be skeptical. Undoubtedly, part of the problem is that there is a certain amount of resignation borne from the overwhelming sense of impotence as we as citizens lose more and more control of every aspect of our lives. This oppressive frustration is non-partisan and universal in every sense. More than ever we need to pay attention now or be prepared to give away every major decision in our lives. If I can make a contribution in drawing attention to this loss of individualism, then maybe something will be achieved with the effort.

My personal background was strongly influenced by the Republican party, which starting about a decade ago has left me underwhelmed by their seeming lack of compatible values. If you need a label, call me an independent conservative that would vote for either a democrat or a republican if they are fiscally conservative, strong on defense, committed to the concept of human liberty, and are not for sale to the highest bidder. My candidates are hard to find.

I do have another blog at www.arttrak.blogspot.com. which avoids politics but still takes a view of the arts that you may not see in the main stream art world publications.