Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
I was pretty halfheartedly watching the health care speech last night while dreaming of Canadian health care, but there were definitely some poignant discussion points including the distracting shout-out by Joe Wilson calling Obama a "liar." The Huffington Post has a full transcript.
Thoughts?
Additional Links:
Op-Ed News on the Racial Context of Joe Wilson's Outburst.
Amanda on the right-wing reaction.
Crooks and Liars on Boustany's rebuttal (haha!).
From the Prospect Dana on Immigration and Health Care reform and Tim Fernholz on the success of his speech.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Open Thread: Obama on Health Care.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15918
The Op-Ed article is fascinating. Wilson needs to be made an example of so that kind of shit stops. Immediately. If that had happened to the former president, you can bet the Dem who shouted would be put to pasture, career destroyed, party lambasted. End of story.
So, I take it some Democrats should have been "made an example of" when they booed and heckled at the 2005 SOTU?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBxmEGG71PM
Which ones were "put out to pasture" and had their "careers destroyed.
Names, please.
So, I take it some Democrats should have been "made an example of" when they booed and heckled at the 2005 SOTU?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBxmEGG71PM
Which ones were "put out to pasture" and had their "careers destroyed.
Names, please.
Oh, blah. Nearly anyone who gain-sayed Bush post 9/11 was wrung through the political and media wringer for being a commie or an al-qaeda sympathizer. My point was (if you read the Op-Ed article I referred to) that there is a distinct climate of disrespect for Obama for reasons stated in the Op-Ed. The few times Bush was publicly criticized for his actions, people were hushed and ostracized. From the clip you reference, all I can hear is booing. Booing is pretty standard on that floor, whereas shouting "liar" at the first black POTUS is not.
booing, which was done to obama when he spoke, can't compare to acosting the president and calling him a liar in that forum.
My thoughts...
Obama sounded stronger than I would have expected - especially in light of the recent folding to pressure around Van Jones...
However, 4 years is a while to wait for a plan to go into effect if it ever passes.
His speech made it clear that the burden will be shifted to the consumer (like auto insurance)... specifically, in the cases of small businesses and individuals. Then, he clarified that 95% of small businesses will be exempt... what of the growing segment of part-time and contract workers?
Obama suggested that individuals are somehow "gaming the system" by not purchasing "affordable" individual health insurance options... Personally, I'm certain I won't be considered at a low enough income for the "hardship waiver," but if I had been paying 235$/mo for health insurance for the past two years (the cheapest rate I can find for anything other than a high deductible plan), I would have lost my apartment around the beginning of this year (because works been hard to come by in this economy). Instead, I dropped my insurance.
Am I gaming the system? I feel gamed by the system.
I recently went to a doctor for a standard checkup... Nothing was wrong with me (except for a slightly lower-than-average vitamin D count), but the doctor came out to ~400$ and the blood tests (cholesterol, etc.) to ~1300$. Even if I had moved down to a HD plan, I would still be 1700$ in the hole for daring to go to a doctor.
So I won't go again. Cool. This proposed plan doesn't do anything to change the circumstances that keep me from getting regular care. If I'm forced to pay $150/mo for a HD plan, I will have even less money to spend on the once-in-a-decade doctor's visit I can barely afford as it is.
Maybe a public option will help to correct this by increasing competition among insurers or maybe the free market approach will actually bring prices down, but I'm not holding my breath (because I just don't have the dough to get resuscitated).
Considering that more and more employers are moving their staffs to part-time or contract positions, there are going to be more people in my shoes. More people who will be required, under this proposal, to buy health insurance that provides little coverage or to face a fine (or will they impound your body?)
And all that is ignoring that it's not very hard to say "undocumented"... not much harder than "illegal" and it doesn't connote that someone's very existence is a violation of the law. It's a little hard, but more important, to stress that there is a public health interest in providing basic coverage to even undocumented workers. Even if you ignore the human rights angle, providing medical care to everyone in the country can help to curb the spread of infectious disease, head off more expensive emergency costs in the future, etc.
Wow, do I agree with you. I thought that comment about young healthy people being called "irresponsible" by not purchasing health care coverage was quite strange (and probably inspired by Republican rhetoric of "blame everyone else but us"). Last I checked, when you're young (younger than 25, for example) your auto insurance is ridiculously high. If you force us to then go out and get health coverage, we aren't going to be able to LIVE--we are still in school, working crummy jobs just to get by until we earn a higher degree that, theoretically, would get us a better job with better pay. Why should I be punished for not being able to work 40 hours a week to pay for my health/auto insurance while taking at least 15 hours of class to better my future? Ridiculous.
Also, I'm surprised no one has brought up his weird conscience laws statement. Why was it even necessary to mention that? And furthermore, WHY is Barack Obama supporting conscience laws--does he not have daughters? Unbelievable. Sadly, I am beginning to see his presence as more of a dummy act--he is the dummy for some Republican ventriloquist. This makes me sad for voting for him.
Totally spaced on the conscience law bullshit... Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. Obama's just trying to dispel nasty rumors that he's a Democrat.
Do you really want doctors who are against abortion performing them?
no one who doesn't want to perform an abortion will, conscience law or not... i mean, an abortion is a surgical procedure that one must prepare and train for... a "conscience law" or rule more easily applies to other health care providers.
federal conscience clauses apply not only to doctors, but to pharmacists, custodians and even HMOs. further, they apply not only to abortions, but to contraception, family planning and even referrals to other individuals and institutions that do provide such services.
here's some interesting reading about the Weldon Amendment... the Public Health Service Act is relatively innocuous, as its only real problem is that it states that health care providers can refuse to even refer individuals looking for family planning services without facing censure... the Church Amendments, on the other hand, are significantly vague, even though they were written due to the abortion and contraception debate...
of course, these mostly don't affect folks, like me, living in urban centers... but if you live in a less population-dense area, without many health care options, a pharmacy that refuses to provide contraception could be a problem.
bless.
Weren't conscience laws struck down with regard to pharmacies? The topic was abortion, and Obama was assuring people that doctors would not be obligated to perform abortions. Whether or not this would ever under any circumstances occur, it's a major fear many people have and that by calming Obama helps reduce resistance to HCR.
Be blessed too.
Well, I guess I just interpreted his words differently, seeing "no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place" as two separate, but related, things.
According to US Pharmacist, federal laws haven't been changed to except pharmacies.
Otherwise, though, I hear you... Obama was just trying to calm people on the right wing - which seems to be the thing he's best at (the trying part). That he made a statement that could easily be interpreted as: he won't take a stand against conscience laws and that the public option, if it ever happens, will not cover abortion, is really unfortunate. And it's not worth winning over some nutjobs who aren't going to stop believing lies and rumors because the crown prince of demon socialist death panels told them different.
If people who don't support public funding for abortion are right wingers, then this country makes Romanov Russia look liberal.
As for what he meant by federal conscience laws, well as far as I know there aren't any that apply to birth control. There was an executive order by Bush which was struck down. Although I'm iffy on abortion, I can't see why legally a legal operation shouldn't be funded if others are. But politically it's a non-starter. You can keep a majority of Americans who don't want to criminalize abortion. You're not going to get one to support making everyone pay for it. And I'm glad Obama didn't choose to fall on his sword over that futile point.
Aleks, please read this, to which I already linked below. You keep suggesting that you know what the American people want. I just wonder from where you're pulling these assertions.
Further, yes, it is right wingers, specifically Republicans, to whom Obama is kowtowing with comments about abortion, "illegal" immigrants and so forth. The only Democrats who don't out-and-out support health care reform without qualification are objecting on grounds of fiscal responsibility. I have yet to see one report, article or statement that suggests otherwise. There are individuals who are opposed to abortion but are not right wing and you don't really need to invoke hyperbole to say so.
You are wrong, however, if you think this small minority is the target of Obama's comments. He's clearly bending over backwards to get bipartisan support for the proposed legislation, not to pull insignificant anti-choice Dems.
Oh, and why don't you read the link in the comment to which you were referring? It would expand the scope of "as far as [you] know" regarding conscience clauses. As would any of the links I've put in my comments, for that matter.
I read the transcript where he states: "Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those -- especially the young and the healthy -- who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers by giving them coverage. The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for these people's expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors. And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek -- especially requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions -- just can't be achieved."
It seems that he's saying if people don't take advantage of health care that would be available to them after his program was implemented--and it is affordable--then it would be a problem if healthy people still do not go on health care.
I agree with you though that the comment if off-putting and upsetting especially when so many of Obama's supporters have been young people. I was unable to afford health care in college and did not receive health care from my family because my mom could only afford to support herself and my younger brother. I went on the university's health plan--which is a discount to see the campus doctors, not insurance. I would have been covered if, god forbid, I had to go to the ER. I was lucky that I never got sick enough or injured enough to have to go to the ER. My family told me if I ever had to go to the hospital we'd try to figure it out when it happened. I don't appreciate being told that this is irresponsible behavior when I was often working one or two jobs and paying my way through school, especially when I did pay the extra fees to get on the campus care plan. It's absurd to me that even though I paid thousands to go to school and extra optional fees for a health plan while I was in school that I still would not be covered if I had to go to the hospital.
It seems to me that most young people don't have insurance because most people are insured through an employee insurance plan. If you don't have an employer yet, how are you going to have employer provided health insurance? Individual insurance is mega expensive, why would young people without jobs with employer insurance be able to afford it?
The whole thing frustrates me. I want single payer...grrr
Wow, do I agree with you. I thought that comment about young healthy people being called "irresponsible" by not purchasing health care coverage was quite strange (and probably inspired by Republican rhetoric of "blame everyone else but us"). Last I checked, when you're young (younger than 25, for example) your auto insurance is ridiculously high. If you force us to then go out and get health coverage, we aren't going to be able to LIVE--we are still in school, working crummy jobs just to get by until we earn a higher degree that, theoretically, would get us a better job with better pay. Why should I be punished for not being able to work 40 hours a week to pay for my health/auto insurance while taking at least 15 hours of class to better my future? Ridiculous.
Also, I'm surprised no one has brought up his weird conscience laws statement. Why was it even necessary to mention that? And furthermore, WHY is Barack Obama supporting conscience laws--does he not have daughters? Unbelievable. Sadly, I am beginning to see his presence as more of a dummy act--he is the dummy for some Republican ventriloquist. This makes me sad for voting for him.
"Am I gaming the system?"
I don't know you personally & I refuse to comment on your personal behavior, so please don't take this comment that way.
We definitely have a "free rider" problem. There was an article recently up on Double X where a free lance journalist was describing her difficulty in getting a maternity rider for health insurance. She was seeking maternity coverage because she was planning to get pregnant. She was outraged at the cost of coverage, the skimpiness of benefits, and the conditions imposed.
I think the real outrage is that she was buying insurance because she was planning on getting pregnant & (obviously) didn't want to pay the (expensive) full on costs of pregnancy. There's a term for this, its called: moral hazard. Insurance can't work & will forever be expensive if people only purchase it when they know they need it. Getting health insurance after you know you need it, is like having an uninsured car & calling up Geico after you've been in a wreck.
I once went on MinnesotaCare to pay for an expensive operation for a preexisting condition. Thank you taxpayers, and God bless Minnesota. I'd do it again, because I needed that operation, but it really wasn't fair to everyone else that I wasn't paying premiums until I needed coverage. Of course, with a preexisting condition I couldn't get normal coverage. But if Obama can make the insurance companies pay for preexisting conditions, then there's really not much point in carrying insurance until you need it. Under the current rules, people are doing what we can to get by, but if insurance is going to cover everybody, then it's going to need to be paid for by everybody.
Well, I'll tell you right now that I've paid for every ounce of health care I've received... including floating my own insurance to the tune of about $3000/year during which I think I went to the doctor once over two years.
The real moral hazard (I know, bastardizing the term, but bear with me) here, I figure, is this bullshit that I was financing while paying obnoxious premiums on the off chance I'd get injured or very sick.
Or that a simple checkup ran me $1700...
I could understand the moral hazard argument if we were talking about a system that weren't so thoroughly skewed against the consumer. However, as it stands, the executives and bureaucrats in these large health conglomerates are siphoning off far more money than is being wasted on "irresponsible" individuals who wish to both have health care and an indoor place to sleep.
See, very few people are acting in the way the Double X writer was describing. Far more people have been paying into the system for decades and are having their coverage revoked when they get sick... far more people are paying into a system for which cost and risk are so opaque as to be pure fantasy dreamed up for the profit of insurance companies and attorneys... I mean, even the doctors and hospitals don't make out well in this system.
How unsurprised I am to hear that a representative from South Carolina tried to shout down our President in a blatant show of disrespect. Politicians from South Carolina have, in times past, beaten up other politicians on the floor of the Senate with a cane and have been the firebrands of secessionist movements the likes of which led directly to the Civil War.
That some in the Republican party consider this a noble act strikes me as nothing more than history repeating itself again.
did anyone watch this on cnn? **immediately** afterward they had a few minutes of some republican representative with a prepared speech about how this plan will ruin america, and cnn called it a "republican response"
am i crazy? don't they usually follow the president's speeches with commentary from the pundits, not, essentially, a commercial for the opposition? and what about the "progressive response"? because very little obama said made any sense from a progressive perspective.
after this speech, there was a commercial break, which consisted of an actual paid commercial from some anti-health care organization (a very scary one about how canadians cant' get the surgeries they need and they die), then on to wolf blitzer. i thought i was going to jump out the window. this is unacceptable. fuck cnn.
The republican response was on all of the basic cable news channels as well in my region. Ugh.
after any presidential address there's usually an opposition response: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_Union_address#Opposition_response
nevermind that Obama spoke specifically to one of the major concerns of that legislator (Boustany) - "government-run healthcare"...
from Obama's speech (aired immediately before Boustany's):
just checked out the story about Boustany that Samhita linked to, too, and wow... just wow.
Um, you do know the opposition party usually gets some response airtime following any big speech from the President, especially in front of Congress, right?
See: Pretty much any State of the Union speech since ever (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=state+of+the+union+democrat+response&search=Search)
That's how it always is. Last year Bobby Jindal gave a Kenneth the Page impersonation that ruined his potential career. This year they decided not to risk a rising star and went with Boustany.
*sigh* After reading about this speech so much today I am kinda glad I only listened to the last 10 minutes or so. I'm all for a President who wants to dialogue and talk with the other side, but when the other side is acting like a bunch of selfish brats and refuse to compromise (Just say no, right?) it's time to just say "Look, I tried to reason with you people but you refuse to work with us, so we are going to go ahead and pass health care reform that will work."
And the idea of fining people if they don't have health care is ridiculous. It's not like car insurance. I can take a bus if I can't afford car insurance, or carpool with someone. But if I can't afford health insurance (even if the cost is lower than what it is now) I can't not exist to get past that. It's nice to want to make sure EVERYONE has health insurance, but fining people who do not have it is so definitely not the way to go. The wingnuts are making this whole thing worse and worse. I used to be excited and feel really good about this whole health care reform thing, but now a days whenever I hear about ANOTHER crazy republican with another fear driven talking point that isn't even remotely based on fact I just kinda shake my head. Figures, right? The meek will never inherit the earth, so it would seem. I wanna keep up hope, but most days now it's just too much work to hope.
That was fucking unbelievable, he does need to be made an example of, he needs to be condemned and censured by Congress.
Instead of discussing Joe Wilson and allowing ourselves (I speak here of the average American and/or politician, not "us" specifically) to be distracted as usual, can we discuss the fact that Obama not only threw progressisive under the bus in many ways, but singled out abortion funding as an example to appease the unappeasable? What does that accomplish, because I am certain no forced-birther will now vote for this bill?
Overall, good speech, hopefully won over some moderates and is a step in the right direction. I am just slightly disappointed (which was to be expected).
The bill could never pass with taxpayer funded abortion. Those "unappeaseables" make up the majority of Congress and the country. You might have wanted Obama to throw the whole bill away over your single issue, but lots of people still need healthcare.
Do they? I'd love to see some numbers backing that up, because at last count, the majority of Congress - and the public - is already behind health care reform, regardless of language about abortion. Congress is just too scared to push stuff through without some bipartisan support.
Instead of discussing Joe Wilson and allowing ourselves (I speak here of the average American and/or politician, not "us" specifically) to be distracted as usual, can we discuss the fact that Obama not only threw progressisive under the bus in many ways, but singled out abortion funding as an example to appease the unappeasable? What does that accomplish, because I am certain no forced-birther will now vote for this bill?
Overall, good speech, hopefully won over some moderates and is a step in the right direction. I am just slightly disappointed (which was to be expected).
I support health care reform. I'm even in favor of a single payer system, or actual socialized, universal health care that will NOT ration care the way the system does in other countries (months for a specialist or an exam should not be tolerated). But I'll need to see it first to believe it.
I've learned to be wary of Presidents who claim no new deficits or no new taxes. Obama is basically claiming health care reform can be done without pain to the public. No cuts to seniors. No denial of coverage. AND no new deficits or taxes? A self sustaining public option (like Social Security is self sustaining [snort] even when basically all workers are required to pay)? How can people actually believe that without concrete details?
Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.
-President Obama (healthcare town hall meeting, June 24, 2009)
Interesting that Obama makes the link between health care and universities when claiming that a public option has not hindered private education. College education is not expected to be universal. College education is indeed a privilege, as paying for even public schools is a challenge. If EVERYONE were given a decent college level education, regardless of ability to pay, or the kind of support it would take to bring everyone to that level, the system would indeed go bust. (See: public funding of universities, i.e., NOT self-sustaining.) No one caught that.
"an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. (Applause.) Now, let me be clear. Let me be clear. It would only be an option for those who don't have insurance."
Hawaii became the only state in the union to have a "universal" health care plan, just for children. Our governor killed it within seven months because it cost too much. Why? If offered public low cost health care coverage, people who previously had health insurance suddenly did not have any. Imagine that.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93SBEUG0&show_article=1
"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don't believe that was the intent of the program."
And that only involved 2,000 children and cost $50,000 per month in a $2 billion budget. (Hawaii has a projected $900 million shortfall over the next two years.) How will it be with 30 MILLION people, plus all the other millions who will have "no" insurance, if offered a free or affordable public "option"?
The Hawaii plan was cut after seven months because it was too expensive at $50,000 a month and it led to a $900 million dollar shortfall?
No.
Oops. Lawmakers in Hawaii screwed up royally during the 2000s, because they believed the economy and revenues would continue like they were, and increased spending accordingly. My county increased spending about five fold in as many years, while still managing to neglect vital infrastructure and health care, instead prettifying government offices and spending tens of millions building a short walking/bicycle path that few use. Hawaii is not the place to commute by bicycle.
Meanwhile people who have observed Japan since the 1980s know that such growth in real estate or financial markets is unsustainable. People cannot live with the cost of housing and property taxes increasing threefold as they did in the first half of the decade.
Travel and tourism accounts for about 50% of Hawaii's income. Imagine what happens when that fluctuates the least bit, much less experiences a precarious dip? We get economic figures and unemployment that hasn't been seen since the 1970s, all of which directly impacts tax revenues, hence the $900 million shortfall. In effect, according to the governor, Hawaii does not have money for two years, but still has bills to pay.
Hawaii has dropped the ball many times when it comes to diversifying our economy so as not to depend on travel and economic conditions (or selling overpriced homes to affluent west coast retirees and celebrities). For example, despite being mostly rural, and being built on agriculture, Hawaii currently imports 90-95% of its food. Rising energy costs are how we get $4 loaves of bread and $8 milk.
I guess I just don't understand what the big deal is. She wanted coverage for her pregnancy. Someone can't sign up for coverage once they know they might need it? What kind of bullshit is that, anyway? If women have a right to free abortions shouldn't she have a right to some sort of help with pregnancy?
If I'm misunderstanding you, please correct me.
whoops that was meant for cattrack2; I'm getting the hang of this.
women don't have a right to free abortions -- see the Hyde Amendment and Harris v. McRae. Some charities help low income women have access to abortions, but the number of women who get these free abortions is probably far far less than the number of low income women who can't afford an abortion.
OTOH, income requirements for medicaid are generally less stringent for pregnant women because of state mandates to provide prenatal care. Of course, this does not apply to the women just above the income requirements.
While I personally am not outraged by someone looking for insurance when they know they'll need it, it actually is gaming the system. Insurance is based on pooling risk, and if you know you have a higher risk (like, you know you have a pre-existing condition that you've managed to avoid having diagnosed), it's like gambling when you know the outcome. The insurance company and everyone else is betting in the hopes you won't get sick enough to overspend your premiums paid in, and you're betting with the hopes that you will. If you're paying x dollars per month (say $100) knowing that you'll need a payout of y amount (say $1000), it's actually kind of unfair. Insurance is a gamble, not a coupon.
Now, it's equally unfair that the cost of medical care is so outrageously high and that it's a for-profit industry, but that's a different matter.
Which makes me wonder... why we are letting gamblers in for a profit control our health care in the first place. Personally I think health insurance companies as we know them now are as close to an evil corporation as you can get.
precisely. I find it interesting that some religions don't allow their adherents to have insurance because it's gambling.
I'm Canadian, and I'm so grateful for the heath care system that we have here. I recently had to have an x-ray done and I got an appointment within 48 hours, and that was in a public hospital. I don't really know what (some) Americans are so afraid of. All the extra sales (and other) taxes we pay more than makes up for the FREE and unlimited health care.
Amen!
I'm almost always happy that I'm Canadian but when I watch the US debating health-care, I get so giddy that I take out my passport and kiss it.
I have never had any of the concerns about coverage that I'm seeing discussed here. Young or middle-aged (which I suppose I am now that I'm 40) I've never given a second thought to how I might pay for health-care or whether it's fair that I have to. I've been paying since I started working through income tax and, in Ontario anyway, my employers pay through an Employer's Health Tax. Even though we pay these taxes, neither our world nor our economy have come to a screeching halt.
When I got pregnant, I had my choice of an OB/GYN or mid-wifery care - all provided by the province and free of any direct cost to me. Of all the things I worried about when I was pregnant, how to pay wasn't even in the ballpark.
I'm not saying there aren't problems with Canada's health care systems. It varies by province but a combination of free-market ideology and under-funding of hospitals combined with the introduction of new and expensive medical technologies have put strains on the health-care system. Maybe France has a better system or perhaps Sweden has the best system. I'm not opposed to some reform. But, I would fight to my last breath any attempts to end public health-care in Canada.