More than a sound bite, this clip has teeth.

[byro]

I've only watched the second clip so far and it gets especially interesting around 3:47, but this guy is AMAZING! As vaunted as Obama's speaking skills are, this guy makes him look like an amateur.

Also, the way in which his story has been circulated on YouTube and the way in which a million people have connected with it really does make me realize how rapidly these campaigns are evolving -- by reaching people (especially younger, disaffected people) who would have just tuned out in the past because conventional campaigning is so transparently bogus to them.

Derrick Ashong goes a long way to helping me answer my own question, posed in a different thread: "Is America a Great Country?" People like him and his life experience are a big piece of that puzzle.

Thanks for posting, ICO!

 

[Agent-Neon]

So an articulate, well informed young person with an interest in politics. I'm sorry, am I meant to be surprised?

He's very much like his candidate - a solid public speaker with a wealth of poignant words and I will concede that he has a point in regards to all the candidates being fairly similar. The bit on health care was just pure spin though.

 

[Agent-Neon]

Care to explain?

Most certainly. Democrats would argue that Senator Obama's plan for health care does not fit the traditional definition of "universal health care". In my personal opinion it doesn't either, and I think your speaker was aware of the contention behind this issue so he covered it well by saying "it's not universal in the same way". I just found it humorous.

Also both candidates will offer subsidies. In fact the subsidies proposed by Senator Clinton and Edwards were higher than Obama's so to suggest that Health Care under his administration would be more affordable is a bit misleading. Ultimately, when correlating the subsidies to the plans themselves, they balance out and are more or less equal across candidates - perhaps with a slight advantage to Clinton/Edwards.

 

[naked gent]

Holy moly he sure can talk.

So an articulate, well informed young person with an interest in politics. I'm sorry, am I meant to be surprised?

Well your point would be stronger if he had been born in this country.

Most certainly. Democrats would argue that Senator Obama's plan for health care does not fit the traditional definition of "universal health care". In my personal opinion it doesn't either, and I think your speaker was aware of the contention behind this issue so he covered it well by saying "it's not universal in the same way". I just found it humorous.

Agent I don't think Mrs. Clinton's plan fits the traditional definition of "universal healthcare" either. Forcing people to purchase something against their will usually does not result in universal anything. Car insurance is universally required yet not everyone who drives has it. I'd expect the same result with her plan.

 

[opinterph]

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept. – Geraldine Ferarro

Crucial to Obama’s primary success, are his advisers’ unabashed beliefs that they can turn our hopes and emotions to their advantage. Our dreams projected upon their candidate translate into their delegate counts. The religious zeal of these advisers rests on the belief that faith alone is the source of conviction, and that conviction assures determination which in turn guarantees results. Faith alone fills empty words with meaning, and Obama’s long-term victory relies on a repetitive declaring of the faith that Obama is victorious long before he’s actually won, thereby to raise voter faith, to motivate voter confidence, to increase voters turnout, and make the faith an inevitable fate. [Link]

The implication is that the people who have been voting for me or involved in my campaign are somehow delusional. – Barack Obama

There is a longstanding assumption by some people in America that a portion of its citizens do not possess sufficient cognitive ability to participate in politics. We see evidence of this line of reasoning from people who call for a “literacy test” to screen-out those who should not be allowed to vote. Michael Savage suggests that people on welfare should not be able to vote and Neal Boortz suggests that the more taxes you pay, the more votes you get. Don’t pay taxes? No votes for you! Others insist that 18 year olds should not be allowed to vote ...

… if [Derrick Ashong] is an American citizen in what way would his children be "disenfranchised" as he was?

An essay appeared in George Mason University’s History News Network yesterday written by Bob Myers, an African-American historian of mental illness in the 19th Century. He argues that media (and opposing campaign) references implying that Senator Obama is somehow a messianic or cultic figure [to those people “caught up in the concept”] are part of a long history of psychiatric language used in the US to marginalize and disenfranchise African-American political momentum. To the extent that these labels persist and influence contemporary thinking, it is reasonable to comprehend how Derrick Ashong may sense that his children could be both American citizens and disenfranchised.

The Cultural Roots of the Dismissive Argument that Obama Supporters Are “Obamamaniacs”​

…What is most troubling here is not Senator Clinton’s metaphors or Ferarro’s bitterness and race-baiting, but how press and lay-people alike continue to characterize Barack Obama’s political momentum as something which people are getting “caught up in,” insinuating that instead of rationally choosing to be political participants, Obama supporters are operating outside of reality, trapped under some kind of “spell.” History indicates such language comes to us from 19th century American psychiatry, where black people were thought to be “morally insane,” and incapable of free, rational thought …

 

[byro]

Absolutely smashing post, Opinterph. In a class all by itself.

Too tired to say more, except that, among other things, you've given voice to the feeling I've had for some time now that my support of Obama is dismissed, both here in the forums and in the media, as being based on hysteria, "jumping on the bandwagon" and "drinking the Kool Aid" (if I hear that last expression one more time I'll forget my pacifist tendencies and throttle someone).

Bravo and thanks.

 

[Agent-Neon]

Well, assuming that their plans are magically passed by congress without modification, the mathematics in terms of healthcare costs is roughly equal. So as I said, implying that one will be more affordable than the other is misleading. The difference is that Senator Obama is relying on a certain percentage of people not wanting or not purchasing healthcare to keep costs low - so in the strictest sense of the word, he is not aiming for "universal healthcare". Estimates show that 15 million people will be left without said care under his proposal. Senator Clinton's plan is mandated, so like it or not it is "universal", plus she pledges a tax refund should premiums exceed a certain percentage of someone's income.

It's about shared responsibility and it's a system which I believe works. I would willingly pay mandated healthcare if it meant the entire country was covered. Senator Obama's Healthcare plan does not outline what will happen to those who do not pay health insurance and suddenly fall ill. Ironically, due to selective mandating, parents and single parents will not be presented with this marvellous choice of not paying healthcare as it will be mandatory for children so a greater portion of responsibility will rest with them. Furthermore it aims to only offer subsidies to those who do not qualify for Medicaid/SCHIP (make of that what you will).

I don't really understand the comparison to car insurance - are you saying people shouldn't have it? I think that a lot more people wouldn't have car insurance if it wasn't required, and that's not necessarily a good thing.

 

[Agent-Neon]

By the strictest definition, she offers "universal health insurance", which is no guarantee, nor is it the same thing as, "universal health care". Such a distinction is why I'm against her flawed plan.

And Senator Obama offers less in the way of guarantees.

If you want to be pedantic, truly universal health care is a fallacious concept to begin with, but one can at least attempt to come close.

 

[opinterph]

So what? You can write an essay about just about anything. … doesn't make it so.

And what aspect of “the garbage,” (other than hyphenation,) do you regard as incorrect or misleading?

 

[Agent-Neon]

Yes, he offers less guarantees, but it's perfectly fine and better than mandates on the people. How is true universal health care a fallacious concept?

Because no one system will ever offer 100% health coverage. Yet to criticise a plan which is engineered to cover as many people as possible by saying that some just wont pay because they don't like being impelled to, is a flawed argument considering that substantially less people will be contributing to health care if mandates were not in place.

I don't think it's perfectly fine, but let's just agree to disagree. There is no certain way to state beyond doubt that you or a family member will not need health care in the future. Although I guess it's perfectly fine if you have those gullible suckers and parents pay more to sustain a system you could potentially benefit from in future.

 

[Agent-Neon]

I seriously doubt there is enough capital flow in Medicare to fund a universal system. I mean the system is already floundering with costs increasing annually.

 

[Agent-Neon]

I still don't see it as being financially viable unless you mean to increase the income tax which flows into Medicare in which case it would along a similar vein to mandating. This is not mentioning the astronomical costs of overhauling the system - and then I get the strangest feeling that we've been here discussing this before...

Either way, it's irrelevant because "your candidate", in fact no candidate, is proposing what you describe.

 

[naked gent]

The difference is that Senator Obama is relying on a certain percentage of people not wanting or not purchasing healthcare to keep costs low - so in the strictest sense of the word, he is not aiming for "universal healthcare". Estimates show that 15 million people will be left without said care under his proposal. Senator Clinton's plan is mandated, so like it or not it is "universal",

Agent the point of the auto insurance analogy is to show you that just because it is required does not mean it is universal. You say 15 million will remain uncovered under Obama's plan and I say a similar number will remain uncovered under Mrs. Clinton's plan.

I live in Massachusetts where we already have mandated health insurance and they already concede here that it will not be universal. Their method of checking if you are covered is on your yearly tax form you need to enter info you receive from your insurance co. Should you loose your job or simply stop paying the bill in May you won't be covered.

But as you say its a distinction without a difference as Congress will never pass an individual mandate.

It's about shared responsibility and it's a system which I believe works. I would willingly pay mandated healthcare if it meant the entire country was covered. Senator Obama's Healthcare plan does not outline what will happen to those who do not pay health insurance and suddenly fall ill.

Just so you know what you're willingly going to pay, using the Massachusetts example its up to 10% of your gross income and unlike those who get it through their jobs its pre-tax money not after tax money.

Using recent yrs as an example that amount will be going up 10% per yr so unless your income goes up by a similar amount you had better hope those subsidies kick in.

Massachusetts is already struggling with the unexpected costs and its more than a possibility that when costs explode subsidies will not keep pace.

Obama's is more concerned with controlling costs than mandating insurance which I think is a better way to attack the problem. To answer your question to who will pay should the previously healthy fall ill we all will under the current plan and under Mrs. Clinton's plan. All we're discussing here is when they will pay.

I'll say again mandating insurance will only result in even more price increases because by covering everyone you'll increase demand while keeping supply the same and according to economics 101 that means prices will go up.

One more thing that makes me crazy as Jan. of 09 it will be illegal in Massachusetts to have health insurance without prescription drug coverage which adds about 25% to the cost of the policy. If you really wanted coverage to be affordable you might allow people to make that call for themselves.

IC is right the only plan that will work is a government run single payer system. Just because Mrs. Clinton does not wish to duke it out with the insurance industry again is no reason to attack the middle class with mandates they will not be able to afford.

 

[LaloGS]

The first clip is a voice over dub. Not the same voice as the second clip. The second clip while not a voice over, is clearly not of the same level of thinking and delivery of the first clip. You all been had.

 

[Agent-Neon]

snip

No, and no. Your economics is wrong. Mandated healthcare would theoretically be cheaper as the responsibility is shared across the board. The amount of money needed to fund healthcare in America will remain relatively static, the only difference being that under the plan proposed by Senator Obama, less people would have to pay more money in order to balance things (in particular parents, as there will be a mandate on children). It has nothing to do with supply and demand. Health insurance claims would not suddenly increase, and the amount of funds flowing into the system would be virtually the same under both plans - if not with a slight advantage to Senator Clinton due to the higher subsidies and the arguable fact that a shared burden scheme would overall draw more money.

Of course there will be stupid people who will refuse to pay mandated healthcare or who elude the controls put in place, until they or a family member or friend get cancer or something so people who have been doing the right thing all along and paying their health insurance would end up subsidizing them. The truth is nobody wants to pay money to help other people unless of course, they end up needing assistance themselves in which case they transform into the most avid socialist. This is a reality for both plans, only under Senator Clinton's such a freedom to mooch is discouraged as those who do not pay will have their wages garnished (with reasonable measure).

I'm not familiar with the Massachusetts system, but I doubt it is an ideal model. Mandates on universal healthcare have functioned well in European countries far longer than anything introduced in the state of Massachusetts (2005-2006?), so pardon me if I'm not compelled by this parallel. I will however point out that Senator Clinton's plan aims to provide a refundable tax credit should the cost of premiums exceed a certain percentage of one's income (estimated at 5%-10%).

Cost control measure proposed by both candidates are equally extensive, so I am unsure where this conclusion that Senator Obama holds dominance originates from. I won't revisit the idea which ICO cites concerning Medicare again because I have already expressed that; a. I don't think it's financially sustainable and b. No current candidate is proposing such a plan. Furthermore, I'm not at liberty to declare what congress will or will not pass as I am not a member of congress and I have been surprised by what has slipped through before. I will however note that to speculate Senator Obama's plan or any proposed expansion of Medicare would somehow receive a less tepid treatment than an individual mandate would be stretching the imagination a little.

The comparison to car insurance is just nonsensical. The number of people not paying car insurance would be astronomically higher if it were not mandatory. Senator Obama drew the same analogy and I will ask you what Paul Krugman asked of him - What's your point? Are you saying states shouldn't require drivers to have insurance? Are you saying that more people would be covered if only those who wanted to purchase car insurance did so?

The fact still remains that on paper (which is where all these health plans we're discussing are currently situated) Senator Obama's Healthcare plan relies on people not wanting or needing health insurance in order to remain sustainable and so it isn't universal. It is a step away from what Democrats would like to see from Universal Healthcare. That is what I said in my first post and it hasn't been effectively challenged. You and IC can say "oh but I like his plan better" or "we should expand Medicare", however it doesn't change the fact.

 

[Agent-Neon]

Obama offers a system that doesn't force the people to bow to corporate greed; it's a placeholder system that will not try and hide its imperfection and will still make an expansion of Medicare possible in the future. I can live with progress, even if it is slow. But if she becomes president, I will petition my representatives to destroy her health insurance scam. I have had enough of collusions between government and corporations.

If you believe that any industry as large as the healthcare industry will be free of private entities considering the sheer volume of money involved and the number of lobbyists at work, then you are too idealistic. I think we should first focus on acquiring adequate healthcare for everyone before we vex ourselves with ideological battles against the evils of capitalism, but to each his own. The Obama system is flawed because he poses it as Universal Healthcare, yet it isn't and Universal healthcare is not possible without mandates. He can propose whatever he wishes, but to call it universal is a misnomer and to attack his opponents by saying that his plan will cover more people is untrue.

Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T suggested to advisers of Senator Obama that he include some form of mandate, but they did not.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,532906,00.html

Mr. Gruber finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion (€69 billion) per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured -- essentially everyone -- at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700.

As for Medicare, it can barely cover the demographic it's assigned on the funds available to it. If you seriously think it can cover an entire nation of people long-term then I admire your optimism. But as I said, this notion of yours is not in the video I was commenting on, and my interest lies in the plans laid before us - the ones that can actually materialise within the next few years.

 

[Agent-Neon]

The reverse could be said of Jonathan Atler. And Krugman is citing Jonathan Gruber not fabricating these figures.

I agree to disagree, good show.

 

[naked gent]

No, and no. Your economics is wrong. Mandated healthcare would theoretically be cheaper as the responsibility is shared across the board. The amount of money needed to fund healthcare in America will remain relatively static, It has nothing to do with supply and demand. Health insurance claims would not suddenly increase,

If its a free market it has everything to do with supply and demand. Thats the nature of free markets. While you're correct that initially premiums might slightly decrease that will only happen because the young healthy people you're forcing to purchase the insurance will pay far more into the system than the benefits they will take out.

In which case your solution to the problem is to force those who are not causing it to help solve it. And once they are in the system then the costs will start to rise if you believe that those who have health insurance access the system more than those who don't which is a common complaint of the current system.

How many times have you heard that costs keep going up because no one has to pay the full price so they use more care than they might need. And if you have not heard that you might want to glance at the thinking behind health saving account which is that if its your money you'll be more judicious in the spending of it.

Of course there will be stupid people who will refuse to pay mandated healthcare or who elude the controls put in place, until they or a family member or friend get cancer or something so people who have been doing the right thing all along and paying their health insurance would end up subsidizing them.

Understand one thing if you have cancer and no insurance either a charity had better help you or you are going to die. There is no mooching except for emergency care. You got a tumor on your lung and no insurance you'll die with that tumor on your lung.

Under Mrs. Clinton's plan you will be subsidizing them but not today.

I'm not familiar with the Massachusetts system, but I doubt it is an ideal model. Mandates on universal healthcare have functioned well in European countries far longer than anything introduced in the state of Massachusetts (2005-2006?), so pardon me if I'm not compelled by this parallel.

Well Mrs. Clinton's plan is based on the Massachusetts model so maybe you might want to check out how it works. And I'm not aware of any European country that uses individual mandates (I'm not saying there are not any just that I'm unaware) I thought they all used some form of single payer. Perhaps you can tell me which country you are referring to.

I will however point out that Senator Clinton's plan aims to provide a refundable tax credit should the cost of premiums exceed a certain percentage of one's income (estimated at 5%-10%).

Screw the refundable tax credit just give me the the deduction which will put me on par with those who receive their insurance through their jobs. Why should there be two classes of people one who gets the insurance with pre-tax dollars and the other with after tax dollars? Why the tax credit and not the deduction? I smell a rat.

The comparison to car insurance is just nonsensical. The number of people not paying car insurance would be astronomically higher if it were not mandatory. Senator Obama drew the same analogy and I will ask you what Paul Krugman asked of him - What's your point? Are you saying states shouldn't require drivers to have insurance? Are you saying that more people would be covered if only those who wanted to purchase car insurance did so?

For the benefit of you and Mr. Krugman the point is that Mrs. Clinton says her plan is universal and Obama's is not. The car insurance example illustrates that even with mandates universal coverage will not result so her claim is wrong. I'm not saying car insurance should not be required or that the requirement does not result in more people having it, I'm only saying that her plan isn't universal either.

 

[Kulindahr]

The first clip is a voice over dub. Not the same voice as the second clip. The second clip while not a voice over, is clearly not of the same level of thinking and delivery of the first clip. You all been had.

Excrementum.

What makes you think it's not the same voice -- did you do an audio analysis?
Where do you get the idea that's a voice-over?
And what do you have to point to that shows the level of thinking is different?

 

[Kulindahr]

For IC:

what would you think of a plan that would impose a heavier tax on the health insurance companies, and using that to buy out the more inefficient ones? Over time, you'd end up with effectively a single-payer system, which you prefer.