Gibbs responds: I told Ed Schultz he was intentionally lying to ‘get people to watch his show.’

[babylonsister]

Gibbs responds: I told Ed Schultz he was intentionally lying to ‘get people to watch his show.’

As ThinkProgress first reported yesterday, MSNBC host Ed Schultz told a progressive gathering in Minnesota that he recently engaged in a testy confrontation with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. In an off-the-air conversation, Schultz told Gibbs he was “full of sh*t,” leading Gibbs to respond with “the f-bomb.” The Plum Line’s Greg Sargent followed up with Gibbs to explain what happened:

{Gibbs} says he pointedly accused Schultz of misleading viewers about the Dem health care plan in order to “get people to watch his show.” <…>

Asked about Schultz’s account, Gibbs emailed that in their private talk, he strongly took issue with Schultz’s claim that the health care bill is a gift to the insurance industry.

Gibbs adds that he demanded Schultz tell him “why he’d tell his viewers something so completely and knowingly wrong in an attempt to get people to watch his show.”

The White House has tried repeatedly to dispute the concern that health insurance companies would profit from the current reform proposal. In November, White House health policy adviser Nancy-Ann DeParle argued that “insurance companies will profit if status quo remains.” And in December, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer argued that insurance companies wouldn’t be spending vast amounts of money to lobby against the bill if it were good for them.

[ShortnFiery]

1. I think Gibbs was more miffed to be informed by Ed Schultz that Liberals are

NOT pleased with President Obama's performance so far. IMO, that's the rub. :shrug:

[Dinger]

32. Yup, We're Not

I know I don't speak for everybody, just for me.

[90-percent]

2. Gibbs

Gibb's objections to Schultz's motives has the aroma of the last argument of scoundrels.

Is that all he's got?

-jim

[frazzled]

3. The insurance companies WILL profit more if the bill doesn't pass and the status quo remains

I think people like Ed are kind of dangerous--a not-very-bright, and a ratings-hungry preacher type selling populist pabulum to his minions. We can see the effects of it here every day, where a misinformed (or intentionally misleading?) rant on Ed leads to sloganeering that facts and rational discussion can not break through. He's an Elmer Gantry type, and I haven't approved of him from the beginning. It's not that his heart isn't in the right place or he's a bad man--I'm sure he's not. But this kind of proselytizing is bad no matter who is doing it.

[Armstead]

6. He isn't perfect but we need more progressive populist "pablum" like his

One reason the GOP and Right Wing have done so well is that they talk to people in their language and are strong about it.

Ed isn't the brightest bulb in the box, and he occasionally gets details wrong. But IMO his basic message is totally on target, and a needed antidote.

[abq e streeter]

8. +1 ( sort of a cop out to just say "+1", but you said it too well to add anything)

[frazzled]

11. It's not progressive when it's wrong.

Sorry, but all the strong language and whipping up into fervor is decidedly unprogressive if the basic facts are wrong.

[Armstead]

12. The basic facts are that insurance companies prefer the status quo BUT....

if they have to deal with "reform" this is the most corporate-friendly version they could expect.

[frazzled]

16. There's the populist pabulum fallacy

If your only focus is on preventing the insurance industry from deriving any profit (and of course, they will make demonstrably MORE profit if we do not pass the current HCR bill), you lose focus on all the other elements at play: 47 million uninsured, an unsustainable system whose runaway costs will bankrupt both individuals and the country, actual lives at stake now, and the political implications of failing at this point to pass a bill after a year of sucking all the air out of Washington.

Stirring up anger against insurance companies is fine ... but if the net result in the end is to (a) quash any possibility for ANY reform and (b) confuse people to the point that they will let a TeaBagger win in Massachusetts and possibly elsewhere ... then it's a bad thing.

Creating bogeymen is always a danger, because it simplifies complex situations. There's always a grain of truth in it that people can latch on to, but it distorts reality. It preys on people and is manipulative. Call me elitist, but I don't like rabble rousing. It's perfectly possible to discuss the evils of the insurance industry without falling victim to cutting off our own noses.

[Armstead]

21. Yes it is complex, but Insurance companies ARE a bogeyman

The basic problem is the high cost of coverage and the crappy terms of policies for everybody.

Yes, there many other places where costs are too high, and some forms of controls and containment are necessary.

But the plain basic fact is that allowing for-profit insurers to be the sole gatekeeper for people who don't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid is a big reason so many people are either not covered, undercovered or they or their employers are stretched to the max to pay their premiums.

The real answer is universal single payer coverage. The next best thing is optional public insurance. But both have been taken off the table -- to the delight of insurance companies.

Call that populist pablum if you want, but letting insurers off the hook plays right into their hands.

[frazzled]

26. Well, if you believe in a universe ...

where you think the failure of this bill will lead to a British style single-payer system here in our lifetimes, there is little we can discuss. Because I don't believe such a universe exists, except in science fiction. If the bill fails and the status quo prevails, it will make it harder and harder to achieve that goal ever: the insurance industry will become ever richer and more powerful and, especially in light of last week's SCOTUS decision, will be able to lobby even more effectively in the future. We won't get better, we'll get nothing. And in the meantime, important regulations, reforms, and assistance will be lost.

Again, we have no ideological differences ... but a huge difference in tactics.

[Armstead]

29. It IS possible to have a lot more balance in how insurance is provided

I don't think that eventually a universal single payer system is impossible, but that's not the only alternative to the shitmess we have now.

What is possible -- and politically popular -- is to have much stronger regulation of insurance companies AND some kind of public program so that they are not the only gatekeepers.

I believe that opening up Medicare to more people on an optional buy-in basis is both practical and would be possible and popular to do.... Yes, there would have to be some financial aspects to work out, but an affordable plan that younger healthier people could buy into would do a lot to offset any cost of expansion.

There are otehr solutions that go much farther than this lame "reform" we have now that have been taken off the table by the "pragmatic" corporate friendly brand of conservative Democrat.

If we reject anything better out of hand, I guarantee we'll never get any actual improverments.

[GreenArrow]

38. So if this bill doesn't pass,

nothing will be done, all the health care problems that already exist will magically heal themselves? The reason they're pretending to try to fix health care is because there are real problems. They aren't going away if nothing is done right now, and given the nature of this bill, they aren't going away even if the bill passes. The issue must be dealt with realisticly, and that solution requires putting the insurance and pharmaceutical companies to heel. Any real healthcare plan needs to be structured around the needs of the people, rather than being structured around the needs of the for-profit insurance companies.

The bill needs to be shitcanned, pronto.

[truckin]

13. If what you say is true, then Gibbs should go on Schultz's show

and explain to Schultz, and his audience, why Schultz is wrong. I'm sure Schultz would give him plenty of time to present his argument and if Gibbs has a solid case to make it would help to sell the current bill.

Secret phone calls from the White House to the media are not a healthy thing.

[sunnystarr]

65. Amen. (noc)

[sandnsea]

4. Oooh, yeah Gibbs!

Wish I didn't have to walk out the door this minute.

Have fun with this one!

[Jennicut]

5. I get the point Ed is making.

But essentially Ed and Gibbs are both Dems and both on the same side, with different tactics wanting to be used to get the end result. I think Gibbs and Obama have to start realizing that they need to get tougher and more populist or risk losing the base. I think they are starting to get that with bringing back Volcker into the fold. But much more work needs to be done.

[progressoid]

7. "I know you are, but what am I?" "Nya nya nya" "So's your mother"

Jeez, these are our leaders? :eyes:

[uponit7771]

9. EXACTLY!!! I like Ed but starting out by telling someone they're full of shit is NOT the way ...

....to get them to listen to a point

[Tempest]

15. Actually...

Ed said it off camera after they had been talking about the bill during the show.

Ed wasn't getting through to Gibbs and Gibbs was lying his ass off.

I would have gone farther and punched Gibbs in the mouth every time he lied.

[uponit7771]

27. lol

[1776Forever]

10. Ed Schultz is not the only one saying this! Read on:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/the-health-insurance-and_b_394174.html

The Health Insurance and Drug Industry Profit Protection Act Sucks and Should be Killed

Miles Mogulescu
Posted: December 16, 2009

............What's left of health care "reform" is little more than a massive taxpayer-financed subsidy to private insurance and drug companies. No wonder the insurance companies are blogging "we won!" This bill should be defeated.

I say this with no great joy. Although, as I've written extensively in these pages, I'm a long-time supporter of Medicare-For-All, there's a version of incremental reform which would still be worthy of support as a compromise--It would have included a robust public option with Medicare-based pricing available to a large number of Americans, regulation of private insurance premiums, negotiation of drug prices by the Federal government, an end to the insurance industry's exemption from anti-trust laws, a Medicare buy-in for 55-65 year-olds, among other things. But none of that is included in the current Insurance and Drug Industry Profit Protection Act now being proposed in Congress....

The best short-term solution may be to kill this terrible "comprehensive" health "reform" bill. Let it go down 41-59 in the Senate and then blame the Party of No and the Party of Joe. Then pass a series of individual bills which keep the best parts of the larger bill and incrementally improves things. Use reconciliation, where possible, and, where not possible, force Republicans to filibuster against popular provision live and in person. Among these individual fixes are:

• Pass the cost-savings reforms to Medicare. In particular, abolish the Medicare Advantage program which subsidizes private insurance companies to provide Medicare drug benefits at a 17% higher cost than the government-run Medicare plan.

• Use the Medicare savings to increase Medicaid eligibility to 150% of the Federal Poverty Level, and subsidize the states for the extra cost.

• Let Medicare use its negotiating power to lower drug costs and allow people to buy cheaper drugs in Canada.

• Revoke the insurance company's anti-trust exemption.

• Let uninsured individuals buy into the Federal Employee Health Plan available to government workers, without any restrictions on pre-existing conditions.

Then go back to the drawing boards, put together a truly progressive comprehensive health care reform bill, and organize a true grassroots movement to get it passed.

It's not the best outcome. It would have been better if the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats had stood up to the insurance and drug companies in the first place and fought hard for a good bill. But under the circumstances, it's better than passing The Health Insurance and Drug Industry Profit Protection Act that's currently on the floor of Congress.

.........

The truth may hurt but it is still the truth!

[Tempest]

14. "Baghdad Bob" Gibbs

The bill was written by insurance lobbyists and every analysis of the bill shows insurance companies are the beneficiaries.

[tridim]

17. Yea, THAT is how to lie.

Thanks for showing us how it's done.

Do you have a link to "every analysis.. showing insurance companies are the beneficiaries"?

No? Then knock it the fuck off.

[Tempest]

18. Where's the lie?

Try these on for size:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/22/nations-largest-nurses-or_n_400765.html

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_14044300

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/16/AR2009121601906.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56642

And that's just the first four results from Google.


Now kindly please go fuck yourself silly.

[tridim]

20. That's "every analysis"?

Liar.

What a great addition to my liar/ignore list. Enjoy.

[Tempest]

24. Prove me wrong then

Provide an analysis that doesn't come from the administration or the insurance industry that shows it's not one big giveaway to the companies.

Put up or shut up, jackass.

[GOTV]

66. Can you post even ONE contradictory analysis?

[invictus]

46. LOL!

[slipslidingaway]

19. Insurance companies are losing customers and will lose more when boomers...

move to Medicare.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6083122&mesg_id=6083122

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/07/business/fi-healthcare7

"As momentum gains for reforms, insurers hope to turn it to their advantage by supporting a proposal that everyone buy coverage. It would be a boost for the industry, which has seen enrollment decline.


...But this time, it turns out, the health insurance industry has good reason to support at least some change: It needs it. Private health insurance faces a bleak future if the proposal they champion most vigorously -- a requirement that everyone buy medical coverage -- is not adopted.

...Insurers do not embrace all of the healthcare restructuring proposals. But they are fighting hard for a purchase requirement, sweetened with taxpayer-funded subsidies for customers who can't afford to buy it on their own, and enforced with fines.


...The industry's real trouble begins in 2011, when 79 million baby boomers begin turning 65. Health insurers stand to lose a huge slice of their commercially insured enrollment (estimated at 162 million to 172 million people) over the next two decades to Medicare, the government-funded health insurance program for seniors..."


For insurers, getting "run over" would be the adoption of a so-called single-payer plan, where the government pays all medical bills. Such a plan would wreak havoc on the private insurance market, and is widely viewed as politically unfeasible this year. So the best way for the industry to preserve the private insurance market -- and derail the campaign for a single-payer system -- may be to go along with more palatable proposals on the table now, said Jeffrey Miles, a healthcare analyst and president of the Miles Organization, a Los Angeles insurance brokerage firm..."

[slipslidingaway]

22. Link to video and transcript ...

Thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=425502&mesg_id=425502

Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAQN_VG0UvE

Transcript link
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34974690/ns/msnbc_tv-the_ed_show/

[Myrina]

23. Now, why can't Gibbs call anyone at Faux and accuse them of lying?

:shrug: 'Cause Goddess knows they do it all day, every day. :shrug:

[Cha]

49. They have. They've called out fauxsn00ze and any other

media outlet that is lying.

[slipslidingaway]

25. Gibbs is not telling the whole truth. n/t

[slipslidingaway]

28. If Bills Fail, a Quandary for Insurers

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/health/policy/22insure.html?hp=&pagewanted=all

"...Indeed, some insurance stocks initially rose on expectations that the Massachusetts Senate vote might have derailed the Democrats’ health overhaul. But more of the same might not actually be such good news for insurers, some health policy experts and Wall Street analysts say.

...In return, Mr. Funtleyder noted, Congress was potentially delivering as many as 30 million new customers to the insurance market — many of whom would be able to afford coverage because the government would subsidize the cost of premiums.

...But now, in the possible absence of forced change to their business, the insurers still face the daunting challenge of selling a product that is increasingly out of reach for more Americans as the cost of medical care — and thus premiums — continues to climb.

...For insurers, the largest risk may be that without a government-led overhaul, their industry faces an even bleaker future should medical costs and premiums continue to soar, perhaps eventually prompting draconian changes from the government.

...“It’s going to come back to the forefront again,” predicted Matthew Borsch, an analyst at Goldman Sachs who follows the industry and says the insurers face an increasingly daunting environment. “When it comes back to the forefront, is it going to be an even scarier proposition?”

...."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. Well duh.

Schultz is a cable news hack and will say anything to increase his ratings.

This is obvious.

[Renew Deal]

31. Schultz always has been and always will be a self serving chump.

I don't even bother with his hyperventilating waste of a show.

[jefferson_dem]

45. +1.

n/t

[firedupdem]

58. +1

He likes to hear himself talk. I don't watch him either.

[donheld]

62. -1

[jillan]

64. -1

[madmom]

33. Why can't they/he get this forceful with the other side? Ya know like the repugs and the

teabaggers who are spouting lies 24/7.

[Cali_Democrat]

34. Whether some people here want to admit it or not, Schultz is in fact a mediawhore

He gets paid by the corporate media to prostitute himself. He's a mediawhore by definition.

[Armstead]

36. better to be a progressive media whore than a conservative or Beltway Elitist one

[Cali_Democrat]

41. You can put lipstick on a pig

but it's still a pig.

A mediawhore is a mediawhore no matter who they go to bat for.

[CanonRay]

35. Ed's right, Gibbs is full of shit

the insurance industry lobbied to get the bill they want, or stop it completely, now they pretty much have what they want. If it were bad for their business, health care stocks would be down. They're way up. I rest my case.

[cutlassmama]

42. This is it in a nutshell.

[quiller4]

37. I really like Ed but sometimes he is way over the top and

his stretching of the truth hurts us more than it helps IMHO

[livetohike]

39. Ed Schultz likes to the tell the story of how he was a Republican

most of his life. And he still is one. His schtick that he supports working people is a bunch of crock. He is a wealthy entertainer much like Rush Limbaugh.

[gkhouston]

44. He "talks" progressive but has the aura of a huckster. I don't trust him. n/t

[Generator]

52. Jeez that's how I feel about Obama

And not just the talk, the actions, the actions!

[Aramchek]

40. Gibbs is absolutely right. Ed's head is too thick to be trusted.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

43. Screw Robert Gibbs

He is the one that is lying to the American people.

[Cha]

48. No, he hasn't..Screw the Liar ed schultz.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

50. I will put Ed's record up to Robert Gibbs's record

Ed has no reason to fool the American people, at this point Gibbs does and is.

[Cha]

55. Yeah, you do that.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

56. Kos wrote a diary for you today

I hope you read it.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/18/826443/-Canaries-in-the-coal-mine

[Cha]

57. I don't need his opinion nor your's to know what I think.

[FrenchieCat]

47. Ed's disconnect is that he is still talking single payer

as though he hasn't been following what's been happening.

He sounds good, but he doesn't sound like he wants HCR to actually pass.

We got the fact that he would prefer single payer, as would I,
but at some point we have to kind of go from there,
and can't remain stuck.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

51. i think if you took a poll most Americans would want single payer

if it was explained to them, and how they would benefit from it. Unfortunately the Obama administration never made the effort to do that, because they never wanted it. The same with the P.O., I am not convinced they ever wanted that either. Maybe Ed is being idealistic, but I have no problem with a progressive pundit doing that, I have a problem with an administration and a Congress who never gave us the chance.

[slipslidingaway]

54. With the recent SC ruling do we really want to hand insurance cos. more paying ...

customers when they provide absolutely no service other than skimming money and making profits for investors.

:shrug:

They are losing customers and will lose more over the next 20 years when boomers move to Medicare.

[slipslidingaway]

53. The Corporate “Alliance” For Health Care Reform: Serving Themselves Or The Public?

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/09/04/the-corporate-%e2%80%9calliance%e2%80%9d-for-health-care-reform-serving-themselves-or-the-public/

Posted by John Geyman MD on Friday, Sep 4, 2009

"As we recall, a high-profile event at the White House in May 2009 brought together most of the major corporate stakeholders in the U. S. health care system in an effort to build momentum toward reform. The Obama Administration welcomed the cooperative spirit and combined pledges of some stakeholders to shave 1.5 percent off the growth in health care spending over ten years, amounting to “savings” of about $2 trillion. The meeting was proclaimed “an historic event” boding well for the goals of reform — gaining near-universal coverage to affordable health care while reining in costs and improving quality of care.

Having considered the voluntary, unenforceable pledges, together with the agendas and subsequent actions by five of the major stakeholders, it is now useful to re-assess the impacts on reform by the corporate “alliance” struck at that time. Table 1 summarizes the pledges and agendas, as well as the tactics and likely rewards, for the Big Five stakeholders.

As is evident from Table 1, all five stakeholders, with the possible exception of some Large employers, will do well with health care reform along the lines of bills now before Congress. The House bill (H.R. 3200), with a cost of some $1 trillion over 10 years and without effective cost containment mechanisms, would add greatly to the revenues of all corporate stakeholders in the medical industrial complex. Their revenues, of course, are our costs, especially since the insurance industry will likely be protected by lenient standards (such as by a requirement being considered by the Senate Finance Committee that insurance should have to cover only 65 percent of health care costs).

The Big Five that we have looked at are only part of the cost problem. There are many other major players in the health care industry, mostly investor-owned, with a primary mission to make money, not save the money of either patients, their families or taxpayers. These players range from medical device and medical equipment industries to nursing homes to information technology. As just one example, General Electric, the 12th largest corporation in the world, has a big market share for imaging equipment and information technology. It has initiated a big national advertising campaign supporting health care reform, while its lobbyists fight against cuts in Medicare reimbursement for imaging procedures..."

[donco6]

59. It *is* a gift to the insurance companies.

So Ed wasn't lying at all.

[Clio the Leo]

60. I say it all the time, the ONLY reason why Schultz isn't on Fox.....

.... is that he votes Democratic.

He blows the other shows away because of the guests he has on but his incendiary rhetoric is something I'd expect from Beck or Hannity.

[depakid]

61. Well, I knew Gibbs was a complete idiot- and less than completely competent

This just proves it- again.

Stumblebum's too timid to go after our real enemies, but he's got strong language with which to scold and "fight back" against the base.

:applause:

Heck of a job!

[donheld]

63. Ed is right