Tom Price v. Barack Obama

Earlier today, U.S. House Republicans gathered in Baltimore for their annual retreat that featured a question and answer session with H.R.H. Barack Obama. One of the questions was asked by U.S. Representative Tom Price (R-GA) concerning Democrat rhetoric on health care legislation for which both had a few heated moments of debate followed by Obama refusing to answer the question asked.

Apologies for the quality of the audio in the first few seconds, but you can hear the entire part of the Q and A involving Price (and Professor Obama’s lecture) HERE.

After today, Price can go ahead and plan on an IRS audit.


      • ByteMe says:

        Blame your stupid statement on other people not understanding humor, huh? Really, conservatives should NOT under any circumstances attempt to be funny. They just aren’t good at it.

        • macho says:

          With a guy like Obama, who takes himself more seriously than any President in recent memory, it’s hard to make that statement anymore. He’s such a sourpuss over accusations of being inexperienced, etc… Reagan would have had a lot of fun over all the teleprompter stuff.

          • ByteMe says:

            You know he’s dead, right?

            And the conservatives of his era were brilliant; what we have now are bunch of whiny, angry Birchers calling themselves “conservatives”.

          • Ken in Eastman says:


            Dead? I didn’t even know he was sick!!!

            Actually, yeah. I finished his biography a couple of months ago. An amazingly talented, VERY funny conservative guy. I’m just saying.

            Of course the Libertarians will claim Dennis Miller, who ain’t too shabby, himself.

          • ByteMe says:

            Dennis was funny years ago. Now his “rants” just comes off as angry and sarcastic instead of pointed and insightful.

          • Ken in Eastman says:

            Actually, I think he’s funnier now than before. probably because I’m more in agreement with his sentiments.

        • Game Fan says:

          Technically if one person laughs it’s funny. And by this definition I’m a funny conservative. Not to mention the occasional LMAO or the LOL I’ve received in the past. Once again, this just goes to show that liberals are just as bad if not worse with the stereotypes as conservatives. Not to mention the lack of logic or “truthiness”.

          • Game Fan says:

            “Really, conservatives should NOT under any circumstances attempt to be funny. They just aren’t good at it.”

            (Will somebody please deliver me from this absolutist hell on earth?)

  1. Technocrat says:

    Thank God for Ned Flanders, he has a direct line to the Almighty.
    Don’t worry a Gaius Ceasar vs Senate moment will occur hopefully by March 15.
    Pissing off The Supremes is never a good idea.

      • benevolus says:

        Just to show how geeky I have become, I thought that said “they might ask to see his Keynesian birth certificate”.

        • LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

          Yes, he’s American. He was born in Springfield.

          BTW, while still a state senator, he FLIPPED OUT when he found out that people were comparing him to Ned Flanders. I can only assume that he’s still sensitive to that.

    • Dickson says:

      T-crat — I must laugh, our son compared Dr. Price to Ned years ago – before the young man created his brilliant news site at T-J-Peachy — I told Tom a while back that he had now conformed to my father’s philosophy that credibility among elected leaders was compromised when said leaders wore lip caterpillars — the good Dr. gave some other form of reason – the other Dr. from the 11th has found the same departure of said whiskers.

      • Dickson says:

        having Tom Price as my Congressman saves me a lot of time – I agree with him and don’t have to ask him to vote a certain way – but yeah, I know, they need to here from us anyway

  2. PegM says:

    One thing for sure about Obama…he is terminally boring and thinks (erroneously) that anything that issues from his lips is god sent.

  3. Kellie says:

    I am starting to think that Obama took a speech or teleprompter reading course from Captain Kirk. He…pauses in…all…the wrong…places.

  4. John Konop says:

    I think both sides are wrong! What I find most amazing in nobody talks about lifting the anti-trust exemption for healthcare. That is a big reason why prices are up and service sucks!

    The cable companies, electric companies…..all run like this, any do any function well for the consumer?

    Capitalism is based on real competition. The state line idea will not work at lowering prices because the law allows them to fix prices!

      • ByteMe says:

        Reports have Pelosi saying that that if they can’t get the full package in one shot, they’ll go for piecemeal changes and get the bulk of it over time. This is one of the pieces that might be first to hit the floor. That is, if they give up on “Plan B”.

        • LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

          I never understood why Congress, and the General Assembly always try to pass controversial omnibus legislation — if it fails, everything goes down with the ship.

          Although I have my reservations with the overall bill, I think it has many redeeming points to it, especially as it relates to individual plans. I really feel bad for anyone with a chronic illness who’s not covered under a group plan. Why are we only now trying to reform that? It’s really inexcusable.

          • ByteMe says:

            I think a lot of it had to do with the side deals made to get the insurance lobby and pharma lobby onboard with the changes. Otherwise, they were going to pull out all the money and buy all the “no” votes they could get (which would be many of them). Once you included those changes, the other changes had to happen as well and it just turns into a huge snowball.

            For example, if you say “no pre-existing conditions”, the insurance companies say “only if everyone is forced to get coverage, so that the pool is big enough to make a profit while we cover the people who are most sick”. If you say “let’s allow importing of drugs”, the pharma companies say “only if you give us a longer time for drug patent protection”. And so on.

            And only if we do all that do we really “bend the curve” at least a little to slow the costs.

          • Game Fan says:

            “I never understood why Congress, and the General Assembly always try to pass controversial omnibus legislation — if it fails, everything goes down with the ship.”

            You really don’t get it? It’s simple. The big corporations that write up the legislation don’t want folks having time to actually read or understand the legaleze contained herein. Or therein. Or whatever. Meanwhile, they’ve already got the “inside track” when it comes to when “subsection B. shall be defined as pertaining to…” yada yada yada. get it? Now if the politicians actually wanted legislation written BY the politicians and FOR the people, then we’d see small bills easily understood, streamlined, simple, easily comprehensible. I’ve used the football analogy in the past.

  5. John Konop says:


    USA-An effort to end the insurance industry’s exemption from antitrust laws got a boost Wednesday at a Senate hearing where two Gulf Coast lawmakers aired frustrations over how insurers handled Hurricane Katrina claims.

    Sens. Trent Lott, R-Miss., and Mary Landrieu, D-La., testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in favor of legislation that would repeal a more than 60-year-old law that allows insurance companies to share information.

    Lott, who has sued his insurance company over Katrina’s destruction of his Pascagoula, Miss., home, sparked the effort by introducing a similar bill last year.

    He said he began to investigate the insurance industry after witnessing its “reprehensible behavior” in responding to Katrina and was “astounded” by what he discovered.


    • LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

      Trent Lott, that anti-business liberal! I’m glad to hear that the insurance industry is coming under some scrutiny from the right.

  6. achilles says:

    So, did the congressman really claim that his bill provided health coverage to ALL Americans, including those with pre-existing conditions etc., with no tax money needed?

    If so, I have a lake I’d like to see him walk across. And after that I’d like some of that there free bubble up and rainbow stew.

    • John Konop says:

      I agree, I would like to see the math on that. But I do think if everyone had mandatory catastrophic health insurance and than people had to make healthcare decisions based on the cost you would see a major reduction. I would bet this is cheaper than we pay for free healthcare at county hospitals now.

      For example:

      Instead of paying standard co-pay a consumer choice was based on price in non emergency care service relative to cost of delivery of service.

      Free doctor by phone

      Pharmacy diagnosis $5

      Doctor office $50

      Emergency room $100

      Other suggestions:

      Also if nurse could be used for minor diagnoses you would see a reduction in healthcare cost.

      And we lift the antitrust exemption for the health care industry.

      • Republican Lady says:


        How would you factor in:

        1) The unemployed and their kids needing medical care but not having m0ney for the above;

        2) Victims of violent crimes with no insurance suffering from stab or gunshot wounds, car crashes caused by criminals running from the police, or injuries from violent rapes;

        3) Employees injured on the job but the employer does not have worker’s comp or insurance for employees?

        I like the concept of prisoners having to use funds received from prison jobs to pay what they can for their medical needs but society still pays a significant portion.

        I would like to see something in place that doesn’t violate any of the Bill of Rights that could force families and friends of career criminals to pay for injuries their loved one inflicts on innocent people. Sometimes, family members and friends lie to the police or hide out the criminal because they don’t want to see him/her in jail.

        Right now, victims can apply to the state for funds to be used for medical costs, funeral expenses, and property losses but that comes from tax dollars and not from criminals or the people allowing criminals to exist. We need to make sure that criminals with money or who come into future money through the lottery or inheritances, compensate the victims they hurt and to repay tax dollars used for victims.

        What do you think?

        • John Konop says:

          All Good questions:

          1) The unemployed and their kids needing medical care but not having m0ney for the above;

          We pay for this anyways via the people showing up a county hospital emergency rooms. It would be cheaper to make part of the unemployment benefit ie shifting Peach care money. It would save big money if they used the above idea because they would use a Pharmacy and dial doc over emergency rooms for non emergency care.

          2) Victims of violent crimes with no insurance suffering from stab or gunshot wounds, car crashes caused by criminals running from the police, or injuries from violent rapes;

          This is the exception not the rule most visits are non emergency, but if they had catastrophic health insurance the amount tax payers get stuck with would be way less.

          3) Employees injured on the job but the employer does not have worker’s comp or insurance for employees?

          Once again the above idea would offset the cost to tax payers because once again they would have catastrophic coverage.

          • Groundpounder says:

            Open contracts to private DRs that work specifically for State Issues such as Foster Care or Emergency Child Placement. Just a thought….. A few private sources for Kids in care. This would be a big difference from the current system. No one wants to work with the foster family because its Med-care policies. We put our kids under our private plan and it works so much better. However every foster parent cant do that. I dont see where this fits but I am sure it does somewhere. Private care is the way to go. Cost is the issue and whom is going to pay for it.

  7. seenbetrdayz says:

    Considering that you go to jail or pay fines if you don’t buy health insurance, I’d say it definitely costs something.

    If a politician tells you they’ll give you something for free, hide your wallet.

  8. Three Jack says:

    the gop should snip out the part about half way through where obama says, “the gop plan will lower health care premiums for american families and small businesses addressing america’s number priority for health reform…that’s an idea we all embrace.”

    jimmy carter is probably sitting at home thinking, ‘what a dumbass’!

  9. kolt473 says:

    dumbama named one corrupt potus of all time, hes told repubs to stay out of way he wants bipartisan ship this guy liar, and contempt for free speech, first amendment wilson said ”you lie” alito muttered ”not true” over ruling, schumer and company been breaking for ever, dems aren’t to be trusted and don’t wish cooperation just any means of subterfuge to get agenda passed, that’s all.

  10. Ramblinwreck says:

    During this meeting Obama did finally say something I agree with. In this meeting he pointed out that many of the Republicans in the room had held ribbon cutting ceremonies for projects funded by the stimulus plan they voted against. He is exactly right. You can’t claim to be against something then celebrate the result just because you realize a short term political benefit from it without being branded a hypocrite. We have some of them in Georgia and one, Senator Lee Hawkins, is running for the 9th District Congressional seat.

    • LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

      A lot of Republican state legislators too were relieved at the amount of stimulus money we received. Of course they’d never admit that in public.

  11. bgsmallz says:

    I think Obama did answer Price’s question. He told Price to go home and tell your constituents that you are offering fantasy world talking points instead of real proposals that attack the problem….bending the cost curve.

    Premiums, unisured, etc. etc. are all part of the big problem….we are bankrupting our country through health care spending and eating up more and more of our GDP.

    • ByteMe says:

      Clearly that wasn’t an answer Tom (or Pete) wanted to hear.

      I actually listened to what he said and (for those who didn’t listen) he said that the Republicans have offered up a bill that’s not passing the test of having an outside expert say that it’s going to “bend the cost curve” of healthcare in a significant way while covering 30 million people. He also pointed out that that type of bill and those claims by the Republicans were great politics, but not great policy for the country.

      And Pete has a problem with this.. how? 🙄

    • B Balz says:

      Prior to ‘bgsmallz’, Byte, to some degree, Mr. Konop’s points this entire thread is jacked. Here’s why:

      If one READS SB3400 we see the Bill essentially relies on tort reform to pay for itself. Paying for SB3400, mostly using tort reform ‘savings’ when measured by any NON-political, objective means, (Congressional Budget Office) is simply NOT going to work. Using tort reform savings to finance the broad and sweeping SB3400 is like the ‘tip of the tail wagging the dog.”

      The President called Dr. Price on this, rightfully so, and suggested he would embrace tort reform, but not try to ‘sell’ the idea that tort reform alone will pay for SB3400. I applaud Dr. Price’s efforts and the Senate bill is more to my liking, but tort reform is insufficient to pay for SB3400.

      The mood in WDC post election positive that health industry financing reform would pass this Summer, then Fall, then before Sen. Kennedy left us. Now the feeling any reform will pass is disintegrating into ‘we may have piecemeal reform.’

      WAKE UP. We have a public option today, folks! It is called the EMERGENCY ROOM and we all pay for it. The reform of health care financing, from a COST basis, is the key and until that fact is recognized, nothing will be improved.

      The whole ‘death panel’ discussion was pol grandstanding, taking a sound idea and turning it into fodder for the SHEEPLE to ingest and reject.. If we miss this window for pragmatic reform, we will bankrupt ourselves. If we haven’t already done so with: H/T Mr. Dick Williams


      IT IS TIME TO COME TOGETHER FOLK’S. A Nation divided and all…

  12. Technocrat says:

    The major crime here is the ignorance of Vitamin D3 depletion by the AMA, Medical Societies, and Medical schools. 97% of medical care workers still think it is easy to OD on this hormone. When 10,000 IU/day is just a normal solar dose. Why do they scare people into a max of 1/20 this amount.
    Billions workwide have been exposed to needless suffering and death from pharmacological medicines created to cover up symptoms and make profits. HUNDREDS of Millions have been subjected to operations to cover up their lack of Vitamin D reserves.

    About 30-50% of chronic conditions will disappear. Diabetes, Heart Disease, many cancers, broken hips, etc.

    What happens when we only need half the physicans of today and hospital are half empty?

    As Physican and Congressmen they should be ashamed. As a mulatto President he should be ashamed at the suffering caused to our dark skinned population by their EXTREME SEVERITY of low Vitamin D.

    The only thing I think of : Is this a weird secret population control method, surely it cannot be ignorance of our medical elite?

    • Game Fan says:

      Your “alternative” approach has everything to do with the “informed consumer” and “perfect information” and real health freedom, free markets, competition, ect… It’s “outside the box” of what the politicians consider to be “health care” and has nothing to do with legislation or getting the politicians and bureaucrats involved. There’s no porkfest for big pharma or the insurance industry here. And this is exactly why everything you bring up doesn’t compute with the DNC or the RNC or the politicos. It has no meaning whatsoever for folks who’s world revolves around politics.

  13. Republican Lady says:

    I long for the days when the most important decision I had to make was which party invitation to accept.

  14. Progressive Dem says:

    I’ve seen Rep. Price’s question of the president several times, and Price does not come out well. The whole premise of the question – what do I tell my constituents – is disengenuous from the start.

    This question and answer exchange was historic. I hope this begins a new tradition.

  15. Republican Lady says:

    Hey ByteMe,

    I’m bored today. How do I insert a photo like you did to replace the default one?

  16. kim000 says:

    For a political junkie, this event was the best political theater since the 2008 campaign. It was a good move for the Obama White House to have requested that the GOP allow it to be open press. The GOP essentially (blindly?) walked into giving Obama 1.5 hours of free TV time to swat away GOP talking points. Of course I’m guessing that the GOP didn’t think he would perform so well and figured it would be a contest they could win—but this guy’s command of policy details (a George W. Bush he is not) combined with the platform of the Presidency made it an unfair contest.

    And you know things weren’t going good for the home team when Fox News cut and ran away from such a unique and remarkable moment in American politics. Let me get this right—you have Obama unscripted in a room full of GOP legislators and you decide to CUT AWAY! Not a smart business or news decision.

    • ByteMe says:

      Oh, man, there you go trying to introduce “facts” and “reality” into Republican proposals. 🙄

Comments are closed.