Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
That's not really a shock, though - his position has basically been "We like it but won't make it a battleground or litmus test for a plan I'll sign."KlavoHunter wrote:Did he just say there would be a public option? Holy shit!
Oh please, the Media are so terrified to appear "pro Obama" that the far Right could be admitting to being nazis and outright saying they dont care shit about the poor or anyone elese and nothing would come of it.Duckie wrote:Sean Quinn and Nate Silver note that the republicans didn't stand and clap while the democrats did during "Nobody should be broke because they get sick", and that it should in any sensible universe be used for 2010 commercials. Sean Quinn in particular notes Republicans may have shot themselves in the foot minorly.
It sounds to me like he's shooting for a public option but it'll be crafted in such a way as to minimalize its impact to appease the economic ultra-liberals.President Obama wrote:My health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a "government takeover" of the entire health care system. As proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly-sponsored insurance option, administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare.
So let me set the record straight. My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company. Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly - by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates.
Insurance executives don't do this because they are bad people. They do it because it's profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill; they are rewarded for it. All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."
Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. The insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that. But 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. Let me be clear - it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up.
Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers. It would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.
It's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn't be exaggerated - by the left, the right, or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and should not be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end - and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.
For example, some have suggested that that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others propose a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice. And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.
Did you actually watch the speech, genius? You might have noticed the part where Obama mentioned tort reform and the Republicans gave it the longest standing ovation of the speech. So you're wrong about that one. Also, whereas the media might not make much hay of the Republicans refusing to clap for various things that everybody likes, the footage can be used effectively for pro-reform commercials to blunt accusations of partisanship on the Democrats' part. It's pretty hard to argue that you deserve a place at the table when there's footage of you refusing to clap for "let's not force sick people into bankruptcy".Crossroads Inc. wrote:Obama could say "I believe in Guns The holy Bible and that the Rich shouldn't be taxed" and they STILL Wouldn't stand up and cheer him
Well, in theory it's supposed to funded out of money saved by increasing the efficiency of existing health care systems. Additionally, any kind of public plan will necessarily be about 20% more efficient than an equivalent private plan from the start, because that's the approximate overhead for profit and large executive salaries.Lord MJ wrote:I'm wondering how effective this public option will be if it is funded with no tax revenue and it functions just like an insurance company.
Well, if you parse his actual statement he said that it was one of the elements that went into a good plan, one of the ways of reaching the goal of a functional health care system, and that if there was another better way to do it then it would have to be considered. He also explained how the public plan keeps the competition principle alive and keeps insurance companies honest, that is, he explained what made the public option a good idea but didn't say anything about the (fictional) alternatives. So in a way he's saying that if somebody brought him a viable alternative to the public option, he'd look at it, but given that there isn't any such alternative, what does he really mean? I think he's backing the public option in such a way as to offer a minimal profile for the inevitable counterattack; the Republican rebuttal will look stupid for accusing him of trying to force government-run healthcare on everybody because he just said that he was open to alternatives, and then when it comes time to actually construct the bill Democrats will be able to say "well, since nobody came up with an alternative, we'll do the public option".Guardsman Bass wrote:That's not really a shock, though - his position has basically been "We like it but won't make it a battleground or litmus test for a plan I'll sign."
Let's see, he did not drop the public option, called the death panel rumor a lie, and he said that he "will not waste time with people who've made the calculation that it would be better to kill the plan than fix it" or similar words. Granted, I did not watch every moment of the speech, but I thought he showed more backbone than I would have expected.Crossroads Inc. wrote:So the COnservatives win... Who would have thought?
Im not sure how pissed I am, mostly because I cannot believe that for a time I actually believed A Majority in the house, a Super Majority in the Senate and Control of the White House SOMEHOW would mean things would get done. The face that Dems are running scared, Obama is caving on things left and right, and there isnt a single unified front in the entire Capital that has an ounce of backbone to confront the Conservatives.... Perhaps that is the biggest disappointment.
Congratulations Rush, Beck, the Far Right and all of oyu Fear Mongers.. You have successfully, and once more, screwed over millions of people for your own selfish self serving ends.
I don't know that I can be made at Obama himself.. He tried for the most part, but its hard to try when everyone else on "your side" is too spineless to do anything productive to support you. Or more to the point, to spineless to "Fight Back"
Perhaps that is the biggest lesson here... Once and for all, the Progressive side of the government needs to stand up, look out at the Republicans and say "Gentlemen, you are lying sacks of worthless shit."
In retrospeck, we all should have seen this coming.. The moment Obama started putting on the facade of "bipartisanship" and meeting with key Republicans to let them 'feel included' I guess we all should have realized things were doomed... I never thought I'd say we should take a lesson from old Dubya... But, when your side Wins, and wins BIG, you should leave the other party on the curb... No Bipartisanship, no good faith meetings, no "trying to cross party lines" Because when the other side are the republicans, 'Bipartisanship' is simply a way to waterdown and Destroy anything you wish to do.
Mr Obama? The Far Right call you a Despot, Dictator and accuse you of shutting them out... Maybe it is time you gave them a taste of their own medicine.. Kick them to the curb, refuse to meet with their leaders, make it clear to the dems in the house that they better fall in line quick or else,
To be honest, I have yet to see anyone explain why the public option should be mandated, as opposed to simply being available. Why should private health care be banned as long as their is an alternative, and why would anyone be foolish or ignorant enough to expect it from Obama? God knows I never did.Thanas wrote:I don't think so. It sounds more like he basically proposes to create a goverment run insurance company in order to increase competition. So in short, a public option.
It is not mandated, though, as in most european states.
An entrenched private health care system including multiple different providers of coverage for each state will have to be more complex, much more complex, and more expensive to administer than a public plan for all. The private health insurance industry is, then, nothing more than a massive inefficiency in society. It sucks up more resources than a government monopoly and provides nothing of value in return, so why let it stick around?The Romulan Republic wrote:To be honest, I have yet to see anyone explain why the public option should be mandated, as opposed to simply being available. Why should private health care be banned as long as their is an alternative, and why would anyone be foolish or ignorant enough to expect it from Obama? God knows I never did.Thanas wrote:I don't think so. It sounds more like he basically proposes to create a goverment run insurance company in order to increase competition. So in short, a public option.
It is not mandated, though, as in most european states.
I for one never expected Obama to snap his fingers and make America into Canada, nor did I want it. I am tired of people who seem to feel that Obama had to deliver the world in the first 100 days or be a complete disaster/traitor to his supporters. I am tired of people saying "he's betrayed me, I won't support him next time" (as if Palin or whoever runs against him will be so much better) because he didn't live up to their day dreams. I'm sorry if I seem to rant, and maybe I'm just ignorant of all the obscure implications of what Obama said, but the shear knee-jerk anti-Obama vitriol I perceive in this thread angers me almost as much as the town hall gun nuts.
Is this a in theory or in practice model? Cause in theory, as long as somebody pays the bills, collecting money from the insurance companies need not be significantly more complex and expensive when compared to a government agency. Of course, this would require that certain treatments must be covered for and companies forced to pay the hospital charges... which appears to be what Obama is targeting for.FireNexus wrote: An entrenched private health care system including multiple different providers of coverage for each state will have to be more complex, much more complex, and more expensive to administer than a public plan for all. The private health insurance industry is, then, nothing more than a massive inefficiency in society. It sucks up more resources than a government monopoly and provides nothing of value in return, so why let it stick around?
A government option NEED not provide cheap insurance to the sickest by nature. My own government Medishield DOESN"T. That's a huge problem with having a government mandated insurance programme.Besides that, the entrenched health insurance industry will simply use any public plan as a place to dump the sickest. They might have to cover preexisting conditions if they give you a policy, but I don't see anyone saying they have to give you a cheap policy if you're likely to be sick? A government option will have to by nature. It will drive up costs for the government option and it is unlikely the industry will pass the bulk of their savings on consumers. A government option could make insurance companies even less efficient on the taxpayer's dime.
At first glance, to think that the human eye evolved is unimaginable......Destructionator XIII wrote: ...He just said "rugged individualism" as an example of a good thing! My fucking god!
We need Medicare for all, not fucking rugged individualism!
UGH
Sigh....Thank you Rep. Joe Wilson, you said what most American's were yelling at their TV and I highly respect you for that. Hopefully your attitude will spread to other Republicans. As Republicans we need to start standing up for our principles unapologetically. Political correctness has held us back for too long. Grow a spine and let's get America back to being America.
Honestly I think they will get more mileage out of the "You Lie" bit from Wilson. During a major speech to be that juvenile just destroys anything resembling credibility and if groups supporting the public option don't start using that immediately I'll be surprised.Pablo Sanchez wrote:Did you actually watch the speech, genius? You might have noticed the part where Obama mentioned tort reform and the Republicans gave it the longest standing ovation of the speech. So you're wrong about that one. Also, whereas the media might not make much hay of the Republicans refusing to clap for various things that everybody likes, the footage can be used effectively for pro-reform commercials to blunt accusations of partisanship on the Democrats' part. It's pretty hard to argue that you deserve a place at the table when there's footage of you refusing to clap for "let's not force sick people into bankruptcy".Crossroads Inc. wrote:Obama could say "I believe in Guns The holy Bible and that the Rich shouldn't be taxed" and they STILL Wouldn't stand up and cheer him
http://www.pnhp.org/publications/nejmadmin.pdfPainRack wrote: Is this a in theory or in practice model? Cause in theory, as long as somebody pays the bills, collecting money from the insurance companies need not be significantly more complex and expensive when compared to a government agency. Of course, this would require that certain treatments must be covered for and companies forced to pay the hospital charges... which appears to be what Obama is targeting for.
The real beef would be profit taking for the insurance companies. In America climate, forcing any company to adopt any measures to limit profits would be damned as socialist and stockholders can actually argue why companies aren't doing their best to be more profitable.
Emphasis mine. The simple nature of having to deal with multiple different sets of arcane rules and requirements on the part of providers increases costs. Add in the cost of not only profit taking, but managing their portfolio to continue generating a profit, and regardless of the availability of a government option, everything will be more expensive with private insurance around.New England Journal of Medicine wrote:Insurance overhead
In 1999 U.S. private insurers retained $46.9 billion
of the $401.2 billion they collected in premiums.
Their average overhead (11.7 percent) exceeded that
of Medicare (3.6 percent) and Medicaid (6.8 percent).
Overall, public and private insurance overhead
totaled $72.0 billion — 5.9 percent of the total
health care expenditures in the United States, or
$259 per capita (Table 1).
The overhead costs of Canada’s provincial insurance
plans totaled $311 million (1.3 percent) of the
$23.5 billion they spent for physicians and hospital
services. An additional $17 million was spent to administer
federal government health plans. The overhead
of Canadian private insurers averaged 13.2 percent
of the $8.4 billion spent for private coverage.
Overall, insurance overhead accounted for 1.9 percent
of Canadian health care spending, or $47 per
capita (Table 1).
From what he said on the public plan:Thanas wrote:I don't think so. It sounds more like he basically proposes to create a goverment run insurance company in order to increase competition. So in short, a public option.
It is not mandated, though, as in most european states.
It sounds like he's creating a kind of quasi-private company like the Post Office (except that unlike the Post Office, it would be a non-profit) that would basically have instant market access into any of the state insurance markets while operating at the national level and getting the economies of scale therein. My - guess - (I haven't read the entire bill) is that the government would fund the capital costs of getting the Public Plan set up, but then let it fund itself (and people who can't afford its premiums would get subsidies).Obama wrote:I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers.
If he says it in Congress there will be standing ovations. Look at any Bush speech, even the ones that he had pre-wrote and still sounded bad giving them got at least 5-10 standing ovations. Each side has their supporters primed to give the chosen soundbites a standing ovation so when they get played the cheering can't help but be part of the clip.CaptainChewbacca wrote:Anybody besides me think a 50-minute speech shouldn't get more than 20 standing ovations? It just gets silly after a while.
I guess. I thought it was stupid when Bush got applause too, especially right after 9/11.Stark wrote:There's an element of needing to be seen clapping for the right things, as well. It's political theatre.
The difference is that Joe Wilson's behavior was a breach of political etiquette that doesn't allow immediate reference to policy, and only really indicts Wilson. What he did was a wildly disrespectful breach of propriety but I doubt it'll go anywhere. Even in the 2008 election, which logically has to represent the nadir of GOP fortunes, he kept his seat by an 8 point margin. So odds are he'll keep his seat in 2010 in spite of being a retard, and in the national context other GOPers can just disavow him, because he's only one man after all. The collective refusal of Republicans to applaud at specific junctures, on the other hand, is something the party's delegation did as a whole and can be tied directly to policy goals. The biggest issue with that is figuring out how to work the presentation. Saying that some representative refused to clap for X during Obama speech doesn't mean very much to most people, but I think it might be something that's amenable to video editing by experts.CmdrWilkens wrote:Honestly I think they will get more mileage out of the "You Lie" bit from Wilson. During a major speech to be that juvenile just destroys anything resembling credibility and if groups supporting the public option don't start using that immediately I'll be surprised.
Very interesting. I was unable to see the speech last night, so I just learned of it here.CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS – POLITICS
Updated Sept. 9, 2009 – 11:32 p.m.
Both Sides Condemn Outburst; Wilson Apologizes
By Jonathan Allen and Adjoa Adofo, CQ Staff
Republican Rep. Joe Wilson shouted “Lie! You lie,” at President Barack Obama during Wednesday’s address to a joint session of Congress, earning repudiations from his own party and from Democrats.
Wilson took exception to a passage in Obama’s speech on health care in which the president said illegal immigrants would not get health insurance coverage under the overhaul.
“There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false — the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally,” Obama said.
Wilson answered the comment with his outburst, loud enough to be picked up on television and in such an unusually disruptive fashion as to merit reprimands from across the political spectrum.
House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn , a fellow South Carolinian, said Wilson’s heckling was more damaging to South Carolina’s reputation than the exploits of Republican Gov. Mark Sanford , who admitted to having an extramarital affair with an Argentinian woman.
“I thought he [the governor] had embarrassed us as much as we could be embarrassed. But to have a congressman use the floor of the House of Representatives in a joint session to insult the president the way Joe Wilson did is as embarrassing as anything anyone could think of,” Clyburn said. “Our state can do without this.”
Arizona Sen. John McCain , the 2008 Republican presidential nominee and a fellow veteran, denounced the comment as “totally disrespectful and called on Wilson to “apologize immediately” during a post-speech interview on CNN.
A few hours later, he issued a written statement, saying he had called White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and apologized.
“I let my emotions get the best of me,” Wilson said. “While I disagree with the president’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the president for this lack of civility.”
The timing could not have been worse: Wilson’s son, Alan Wilson, launched a bid Tuesday for state attorney general.
And Wilson himself is facing the possibility of a credible rematch of his narrow 2008 victory over Marine Corps veteran and Democrat Rob Miller, which Wilson won with 53.7 percent of the vote.
Miller received a flood of online donations in the hour after the speech, according to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee officials, with one estimate pegging the number of contributions at more than 200.
A Democratic operative with experience in South Carolina said Wilson’s treatment of the commander in chief could cost him among the district’s sizable military population.
“You have a lot of military folks who, even when they don’t agree with the president politically, have a lot of respect for the institution itself,” the operative said. “Before the speech, I would have said Joe Wilson had that.”
Clyburn said South Carolina voters may have the opportunity to redress their grievances with Wilson at the polls and elsewhere.
“I would hope that the people of South Carolina will show him, in as many as ways as they possibly can, how insulting this is and how embarrassing this is,” Clyburn said.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., declined to comment on the matter, according to a spokesman, but Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer , D-Md., said he could not remember a similar incident during his nearly three decades in Congress. “It is certainly something that should never happen,” Hoyer added.
Minority Leader John A. Boehner , R-Ohio, declined to comment through a spokesman.
Members of Congress typically observe a standard of decorum during State of the Union addresses and other presidential addresses to nationally televised audiences.
On occasion, quiet disapproval rises to vocal outburst. In 1999, for example, then-Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., admonished House members to observe standards of respect for the president some Republicans had treated President Bill Clinton in a manner viewed as disrespectful the previous year.
Kathleen Hunter, Jennifer Scholtes, Edward Epstein and Scott Ferrell contributed to this story.
First posted Sept. 9, 2009 10:48 p.m.
