Obama's Health Care Speech

[TheTalkingAsshole]

Because we won't be directly involved in their day to day operations. Simply telling them that they cannot screw their customers by raising rates 10 times faster than inflation. And that they cannot drop customers because they have cancer or some illness.

Have you checked the republican stance on this issue? Even they want to lower insurance costs.

"We" won't be involved in their day to day operations? LOL, funny. Telling a company what they can and can't do is exactly that. "You" may not be in the boardroom, like at GM, but the effect is the same. Incintivising behavior is much more effective in a capitalistic system versus mandating it.

I feel it is a insult to Abraham Lincoln to call these people who identify as republicans republicans. They are nothing like the original party, and shouldn't be allowed to have the same name.

So you must be a Republican to take such insult from the modern ones. It still makes you look kind of silly when you do that. Takes away from what might otherwise be good insight. And I assume you don't want to call anyone Democrats either, right? Because most of them aren't nearly as racist as the original Democratic party was. You want to be consistant, right?

 

[White Eagle]

Hell, John Cornyn is my Senator from Texas and I got his newsy email from him before the speech and he talked about reducing Medicare by $500,m . Which is a lie. The only way to stop them is kick them out.

 

[naked gent]

My main problem is the mandates that are placed on the insurance companies especially for those who have coverage already.

I find it odd that you complain about mandates being placed on insurance companies but support placing mandates on individuals.

But I do like his ideas for getting people covered who don't have it already. In a thread earlier today I mentioned mandating coverage just like auto liability insurance. I wonder if he read my post, haha.

I don't think the auto insurance analogy really holds up but in any case requiring individuals to buy health insurance when wages are going up at 2% per yr while healthcare premiums are rising at 10% annually is only going to end up with more people relying on government support.

Conservatives fear that the public option will be the thin end of the wedge to government run insurance. In their zeal to defeat it they may be missing another thin end.

I also think if the government is going to force you to spend up to 12% of your gross income for a public good they should at least make those payments tax deductible which I don't believe this plan does.

As for Obama's speech it was fine as far as it went but I'm not sure he should be fearing a possible republican filibuster as much as he seems to. I'm not at all convinced that a filibuster would be a political winner for them and would add that the last issue from the right that generated more heat than light was immigration reform which, for all the clamor, was a complete non issue in the presidential campaign much to the chagrin of Tom Tancredo.

 

[TheTalkingAsshole]

I find it odd that you complain about mandates being placed on insurance companies but support placing mandates on individuals.

True, it is a bit odd, but that's what happens when the government gets so entrenched in private business. But if you're going to guarantee government coverage then the government must mandate that people carry at least basic coverage. What I said yesterday afternoon was this:

People who truly can't afford it...such as the temporarily unemployed and the poor (who make up about 25% of the uninsured, and aren't claiming Medicaid benefits for some reason), are the exact kind of people that I, and most people, want to see helped. But not through a government controlled plan. But rather through tax incentives and assistance within a private system.

The 25% who are illegals shouldn't be covered anyway. And the remaining 20-25 million who are voluntarily uninsured and have the money to pay the premiums and/or bills should perhaps have to provide catastrophic coverage a la liability coverage for automobiles or prove ability to pay independently. There are ways to reform/improve the system that doesn't involve the government taking over health care entirely. If Obama and the Democratic Congress truly want to make sure everyone is covered, then it is time that they show that they are amenable to other, private/public options.

My version of health care reform would be different, but the reality is that we have to work with the existing system. As far as mandates on businesses...I just think that incentives work better than mandates.

I don't think the auto insurance analogy really holds up but in any case requiring individuals to buy health insurance when wages are going up at 2% per yr while healthcare premiums are rising at 10% annually is only going to end up with more people relying on government support.

I also think if the government is going to force you to spend up to 12% of your gross income for a public good they should at least make those payments tax deductible which I don't believe this plan does.

But didn't you listen to the speech last night? All of this streamlining and Medicare savings will bring down the cost of health care.

And I agree about the tax deductibility.

 

[chance1]

Well. Obama was charismatic, forceful and presidential. The speech had some great lines and he delivered them perfectly.

And the Congressman who yelled out "You lie!" was out of order. Adults in America have to learn to control themselves.

But as usual with Obama, high marks on seduction and not so much on policy.

His numbers will get a lift from this. Solid substantive health care reform probably will not. This is the way it usually goes with an Obama speech -- he benefits personally but the larger goal does not.

I really thought it was a tale of two speeches

Speech 1 - we're in this together - Repubs and Dems both want the same thing which is coverage for all - he quoted the "left" version and the "right" version - and his opinion that blowing the thing up and starting over was not the right thing to do (now) - keep what is good and fix what is bad

Mr. Pragmatic and inclusive

Repubs had to love this - thinking to themselves, we got this mofo right where we want him - he needs us - haha

Speech 2 - all those who disagree in a disagreeable way can ................. take a hike - got very partisan - talked about death panels and immigrants being covered and pointed fingers at the misinformation spread not just by special interest groups but by elected officials

Yikes

Nancy Pelosi tried very hard to smile but couldn't either because of the plastic surgery or her makeup would've cracked

Bottom line here is this was what the hardliners on the left (and the 85 here) wanted to hear

I guess my question is will the real Pres. Obama stand up?

I'm not so sure this was such a great speech as it leaves one wondering WTF?

The man is so talented for sure - looks good - speaks well - I think he could've cut the speech in half personally (i am sure i will get the you're too stupid to listen for 30 minutes thing)

As with anything, what happens next is what is key

I thought his best moments were:

talking about the need to fix this thing - that repubs and dems before him have tried - and lauding dingel for introducing the bill like clockwork

laymen's terms of what it means - and to whom - very good

ted kennedy moment

i still am not sure about the president though - in this instance perhaps playing it both ways is the way to go - as he can sell it to both sides as "tasty"- and this might be the only true way to sell it

rambling a bit (me that is)

over and out

 

[naked gent]

My version of health care reform would be different, but the reality is that we have to work with the existing system.

I'm ok with working within the current system and my version of health care reform would include the breaking up of the near monopoly health insurance companies currently enjoy and introduce real competition into the system.

Republicans way to achieve more competition is to allow health insurance companies to compete across state lines which won't do very much imo. The only result will be cheaper insurance via less insurance which doesn't sound like progress to me.

Instead lets attack the business model of the health care insurers and force level pricing within a hospital or chain of hospitals which means they price their services for all based on their costs instead of who is getting the service.

This would open up the industry to real competition with more players entering the market which they can't do now because they can't compete with large insurers and the discounts they receive from hospitals.

Hospitals would also be forced to compete on public prices instead of burying their charges in insurance deals.

I'm all for working within the existing system and I've heard that competition brings prices down so why not try introducing real competition into a system whose costs are out of control?

 

[NickCole]

I really thought it was a tale of two speeches

Speech 1 - we're in this together - Repubs and Dems both want the same thing which is coverage for all - he quoted the "left" version and the "right" version - and his opinion that blowing the thing up and starting over was not the right thing to do (now) - keep what is good and fix what is bad

Mr. Pragmatic and inclusive

Repubs had to love this - thinking to themselves, we got this mofo right where we want him - he needs us - haha

Speech 2 - all those who disagree in a disagreeable way can ................. take a hike - got very partisan - talked about death panels and immigrants being covered and pointed fingers at the misinformation spread not just by special interest groups but by elected officials

Yikes

I agree. He gave both Republicans and Democrats something to feel included, and set it up that if either is too strong in holding out for what they believe in they look like spoilers rather than principled fighters. It was genius. Not for good law but for him smelling like a rose no matter how rotten the legislation. And that forceful stuff about misinformation was also genius because of course misinformation is something ObamaCo are pros at.

But really I was only commenting on the writing itself and Obama's delivery, both of which I give high marks. Obama's finally mastered the teleprompter and he looked and sounded great last night.

Nancy Pelosi tried very hard to smile but couldn't either because of the plastic surgery or her makeup would've cracked

Since you mention it, I thought her makeup was really bad. A woman her age wearing a bright red suit needs more color in her makeup. Hillary's make up and hair color worked with the red but Pelosi looked haggard.

That's Nancy Reagan's red, BTW. Just as Michelle's look last night was pure Jackie Kennedy. No originals anymore, just knock offs.

Bottom line here is this was what the hardliners on the left (and the 85 here) wanted to hear

Exactly. It was a plea to get everybody to like him again. He's the good guy, he just wants good things for everyone, wants everyone to win except those who [strike]make him look bad[/strike] put out "misinformation."

But his speech did nothing to forward good policy or substantive health care reform. It was all about making him look good and setting up the blame machine.

I guess my question is will the real Pres. Obama stand up?

That was him, the real President Obama, last night.

Good looking, charming, charismatic, well spoken, likable, friendly ... and utterly worthless as a President who can lead a Dem majority Congress to great legislation.

The man is so talented for sure - looks good - speaks well - I think he could've cut the speech in half personally (i am sure i will get the you're too stupid to listen for 30 minutes thing)

I don't know about half (probably so) but it was definitely too long. I started glancing at the clock around 8:45 and suspect others began to lose interest as well. That's a speech that's too long.

As with anything, what happens next is what is key

Yep.

Obama can sound and look great when he's performing a speechwriter's words. But what matters is the quality of the legislation.

 

[NickCole]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my last post. It is my contention that it would be tactically unwise for Obama to expend all his influence now, before the approval of the Senate Finance committee, when he should instead be saving that kind of move for the House/Senate conference which is where the real Bill will be determined when the details are hammered out (including yes, the public option). If at that time Obama fails to deliver, then I will agree with your criticism.

Since I don't think Obama's a moron -- that he's somehow not noticed the Republicans are obstructionist swine -- I assume he's playing a different game. As I see it, he's giving these them enough rope to hang themselves, to move the middle firmly and substantially into the Democratic column the same way they moved to the GOP in reaction to Abbie Hoffman and Angela Davis 40 years ago. This is building a base upon which the party can stand for the next decade or two. That Obama has seemed, if anything, overly reasonable with them so far only establishes his bona fides for the time when (as I believe is inevitable) he forges ahead with a fully Democratic health-care plan. I'm open to the possibility this is gambit to overcome the biggest current obstacle to a bill: getting something, anything through the Senate Finance Committee. And again, I remind everyone: no final votes have been taken.

Bottom line: many on the left (I'm not talking about you Nick Cole) seem to want the emotional satisfaction of seeing the right -- if not the entire GOP -- told off now. Obama prefers the greater-term satisfaction of country-changing legislation, and believes that cause is best served by holding his fire. We'll find out sometime this year which approach had more validity. Remember that these were the same leftists who were screaming at Obama to be "tougher" and "angrier" in the Presidential debates against McCain, completely misreading Obama's strategic calmness as a sign of weakness...and we saw who's debate performances won the poll-wars, and who ultimately won the election.

Also, here's a short but excellent Talk of the Town piece in the New Yorker that points out -- with much more nuance, and attention to historical scope and context than the far-left cry babies and the far-right alarmists -- how Obama is not (as yet) losing on this issue.

I understand what you're saying but I disagree with your analysis of what Obama's doing.

But we'll see what health care reform legislation the Democratic President and Democratic Majority Congress come up with. I hope I'm wrong and they deliver on what Edwards/Clinton/Obama promised last year.

And that Talk of the Town piece is very disturbing in that it again illustrates the preference Obama and many of his supporters have in admiring Reagan. Before Obama, Democrats recognized what a disappointment Reagan was, the messes he made while pretending all that shining city on a hill stuff. If Obama's going to deliver the Democratic version of Reagan we're in big trouble. And Democrats used to understand that. Democrats used to be proud of our own two-term President whose policies delivered the longest sustained period of prosperity in our history, and surplus, rather than the Republican two-termer whose policies resulted in massive debt.

 

[NickCole]

I'm glad it isn't typical of this community to discuss this sort of nonsense. Shouldn't this cattiness be in Hot Topics?

You think self presentation is nonsense?

You're wrong.

In politicians it's certainly troubling when presentation is the best an elected official has to offer, but the way one presents him/herself can clearly impact how one is perceived. And that's not nonsense.

Pelosi and Clinton didn't just happen to wear red tailored suits last night any more than Mrs. Obama just happened to wear a stylish pink ensemble. And I doubt, with those three, an obsession with fashion had anything to do with it. They were, as the old expression goes, dressing for success. Observing that and commenting on it is not cattiness, it's perceptive.

 

[mj2006a]

Something must be done about the health care accessibility in the US. It is a shame that people who lose their jobs or that are working on building their own business from the bottom (really small businesses) have no access to medical care unless they are paying premiums of over 1200.00. Unless it is catastrophic insurance but even then have no coverage of health issues they had while employed as the private insurance will not cover them (such as allergy treatment for instance or hormone therapy). The Insurance Industry have destroyed the rights of the people to have proper medical care. Said all that, I AM NOT in favor of Obama's plan. He is a a first class liar and destroyer of any good in any thing that could work. In few words...changes are needed but Obama's intentions are not to help but to destroy. He is a liar and has no interest in helping anyone.

 

[hotatlboi]

Or discussed on this fool's show?

 

[NickCole]

Something must be done about the health care accessibility in the US. It is a shame that people who lose their jobs or that are working on building their own business from the bottom (really small businesses) have no access to medical care unless they are paying premiums of over 1200.00. Unless it is catastrophic insurance but even then have no coverage of health issues they had while employed as the private insurance will not cover them (such as allergy treatment for instance or hormone therapy). The Insurance Industry have destroyed the rights of the people to have proper medical care. Said all that, I AM NOT in favor of Obama's plan. He is a a first class liar and destroyer of any good in any thing that could work. In few words...changes are needed but Obama's intentions are not to help but to destroy. He is a liar and has no interest in helping anyone.

That, in boldface, would be covered with a public option.

And that's an essential element of health care reform.

Without it, health care reform legislation is not good enough. Period.

If you're an American, write to your representatives and tell them what you think. They're listening.

 

[NickCole]

^ Something reasonable, Nick. It's shame that I feel compelled to congratulate you on a mediocre post, but good job all the same!

The weird thing is you probably thought you'd written something complimentary to me.

It's just plain icky.

God, your arguments are so pathetic they are becoming a farce. "You're wrong" about some odd subjective bullshit?

The makings of good presentation may be subjective but that there is value in good presentation is not subjective. You may not know about it, but it's true that the way we look impacts the perception others have of us. And, especially at widely viewed events like last night's, it can be important.

 

[TX-Beau]

It would of course be heresy for any liberal to say that what Reagen achieved was "good", but it would be historical ignorance and blindness to purport that he didn't achieve it.

Ahhhh but did he remember achieving it…




I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist. Carry on.

 

[Jack Springer]

At least one good thing came out of last night's speech -- no health care for illegal aliens. Let's make sure that Obama holds his promise.

 

[TX-Beau]

At least one good thing came out of last night's speech -- no health care for illegal aliens. Let's make sure that Obama holds his promise.

YEAH!!! Let them die in the streets the wankers!!!!!!!

 

[TX-Beau]

Obama doesn't have a health care plan. In fact, very little Congress is proposing even matches up with what he's saying. So until the two of them even get on the same page how the hell can anyone get behind "his plan?" He's selling. Even worse, he's selling something that's in direct contrast to what Congress is proposing. I dunno if you call that lying but if it's not the truth, and you know it, and you say it, then if it's not lying it's damn close.

Huh?

So he's saying something different than congress, but worse, he's saying something DIFFERENT than congress.

Right. What a liar.

LOL

 

[TX-Beau]

That's always been his stance.

But no matter what you do you will still have some that are treated because under current law you do not need to prove your citizenship status as you are wheeled into the ER bleeding and in shock.

So as a practice no "illegal aliens" will be covered, however in rare instances they still will be treated whether they are Mexican, Canadian, German, French, Japanese, or whatever. Upon recovering they then will individually be on the hook for their medical care bill. If they cannot pay then yes, the system "loses" but that's how it works today. Hospitals are charged with saving lives not being immigration police and US customs demanding proof of citizenship from people staggering in, or being wheeled into the ER.

Actually "illegal immigrants" use the E.R. for everything from childbirth to broken arms - but so do the poor and uninsured, and there are a hell of a lot more of them. They all cost the taxpayer more than if we just got them some insurance and let them go to the doctor like everyone else.

The E.R. our current public option.

 

[Jack Springer]

Would you answer a serious question? What do you propose to be done with an illegal alien who is seriously hurt while working for corporate America who shelters and takes advantage of him/her?

To clarify a point in my question---I believe that someone within the hiring company is aware that illegal aliens work for them, or they haven't satisfied the law's requirements that they know of their legal right to live and work in this country. I'll concede that SOME may, but not all. I also think that these companies take advantage of these illegal aliens because they can; there is no government oversight because if so both parties would suffer.

If you need more clarification, or if you think my question contains an error that prevents you from answering, do let me know.

I don't want anyone to go without emergency care. However, I do think it should be required all all employers use the "E-VERIFY" system that is in place when they hire new employees. It's a very easy system to use.

 

[TX-Beau]

No what's worse is he's out there actively trying to sell it to the public so it's deliberate.

It's really very simple. He has said all along if you like your plan you can keep it. But HR3200 says that if currently plans don't follow the new mandates they will have to comply. Voila! A lie.

So Obama tried to sell his ideas, the H of R tries to sell theirs, but Obama is saying something different than the House which makes Obama a liar? Last time I looked, the President of the US, was not a member of the House of Representatives.

Right.

Back to Huh?

Or could this be just a partisan attack?

Hmmmm.