Game Time: Obama Set to Deliver National Address on Health Care Sept. 9
Posted by Robert Zimmer on 09.03.2009
What the president's health care speech must contain to succeed.
The White House has confirmed that on September 9, the president will discuss health care reform in a special address to Americans in front of a joint session of Congress.
Health care reform unquestionably had a rough summer, thanks to public confusion engineered by right-wing scaremongering and the administration's belated response. However, conservative efforts to derail reform peaked too early, before Congress even returned from its summer vacation. The outright falsehoods upon which most Republican opposition was predicated have been widely debunked. Thanks to increasing grassroots efforts by common-sense Americans, the tide has turned back in favor of health care reform. Despite Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh's best efforts, we now know there will be no death panels, no forced government takeover of the health care system, or executions of Grandma. (Of course, some wingnuts will never believe the truth -- and to hell with them.) Now, with Congress set to get back to work on health care reform next week, I think we will see clearly that contrary to many media reports, Obama's reform efforts are not on life support. However, reform is not in the bag yet, and a lot can still go wrong.
The president's speech on September 9 needs to be a home run, like his campaign speech on race, or his acceptance remarks at the Democratic National Convention. We need less of Professor Obama and more of the man who inspired tens of millions to believe in hope again. Here's what I think Obama has to say to be successful:
1) Our health care system is broken and will wreck our economy if it's not fixed --and soon: Health care already comprises one-seventh of the nation's economy. Health care costs are increasing at an exponential rate, and will bankrupt our country, plain and simple, if reforms are not implemented. If you think current budget deficits are scary, wait and see how bad things get if reform doesn't pass this year. Health insurance companies have had 35 years to prove they can cover everybody and control costs. They have done neither; each year, the number of uninsured increases and costs go up. We can no longer afford either.
2) Health care reform is a moral imperative: 47 million Americans have no health insurance whatsoever; 25 million more are "underinsured," meaning they have a health insurance plan but their out-of-pocket costs are so high as to render their coverage meaningless. In essence, then, nearly one-fourth of Americans face the possibility of financial ruin if they get sick beyond a simple cold. Are all of these 72 million people just lazy, or undeserving? Republicans are fond of claiming our country was based on Judeo-Christian moral values, but apparently there isn't much lobbyist campaign money in Jesus' call to minister to the sick. This is the most powerful nation on earth, and supposedly a beacon of hope. Inside the Statue of Liberty, a plaque reads "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Either we change the plaque to add "But if they get sick, tough luck," or we step up. If America is to have any credibility when preaching our moral superiority, we can no longer excuse the fact that we are the only major industrialized nation on earth that does not guarantee health care to its citizens.
3) Health care reform is designed to increase competition and choices, not reduce them: The amazing thing about Republican opposition to the so-called "public option" is that more competition is a bedrock principle of capitalism. If health insurance companies are providing quality, affordable health plans, then they have nothing to fear from a government-sponsored health insurance option. If the public option sucks, nobody will sign up for it – if it's better, lots of people will, and the insurance companies will be forced to improve the quality of their product, just like in any other industry within a capitalist economy. Many cynical Republicans are more interested in protecting health insurance and drug company profits than insuring everyone, because frankly, uninsured people don't donate nearly as much campaign money to politicians as health insurance and drug companies do.
4) If you like the health insurance you have, you can keep it: If you've got insurance, and it works great for you and it's affordable, you're good to go. What reform means to you, then, is that the odds of you continuing to have insurance that you like, and that's affordable, will increase. Contrary to the media and Republican fixation on the "public option," the majority of health care reform consists of measures to control costs and increase access, not some fictional government takeover of your health insurance. All the health care reform proposals on the table from various committees in the House and Senate share a number of features in common: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history ("pre-existing conditions"); insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses; insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics; insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill; insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender; insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive; children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26; and insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full; and insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
5) If you have no health insurance, or you don't like the plan you have, you will have more choices, and the government will help you purchase insurance if you can't afford it: This is where the "public option" comes in. The government won't force anybody to switch to or sign on to the government plan – hence the term "option." If the government health care plan is appealing to you, sign on. If not, get your insurance elsewhere. Either way, reform will make insurance more affordable for all Americans. Whether the government-sponsored option is directly run by the government, or takes the shape of a health care "co-op," which would be government-backed but run by its individual members, doesn't matter to most people. They just want affordable access to health care if private insurers won't or can't provide it.
6) Health insurance reform is designed to be deficit-neutral: Every committee in the House and Senate, and the president himself, have committed to health care reform that will not add to the long-term deficit. To vote for anything else is irresponsible. Yes, there will be spending outlays in the beginning, but this is necessary and sensible. In the long term, however, health care reform will pay for itself – and eventually, save hundreds of billions of dollars, thereby reducing the budget deficit in the long-term.
7) Don't believe the health care myths flying around out there: Obama needs to reclaim the moral high ground by reminding people they believed in the truth of his message of change -- so who do Americans really want to believe -- him, or reform opponents who engineered the disastrous, dishonest policies of the Bush years? Reform won't cause rationing of health care; it will decrease it. Rationing already exists – health insurance companies do it every day to maximize profits. Anybody who's had a claim denied by their insurance companies knows this all too well. There are other myths out there that are lies, pure and simple. The government won't take over your bank account, bump off your grandmother, or destroy small businesses. See for yourself: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq.
If the president can make all these points without further muddying the issues (a recent poll indicates 67% of Americans are confused about what health care reform means), then his speech will be a success and it will give health care reform efforts a boost as we head into the proverbial ninth inning.
I think it is essential that President Obama step up his own game while asking Congress, and the American people, to do the same with respect to health care reform. We elected this man, and Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate, to change the direction of our country, away from the catastrophic failures of the Bush era. If they cannot or will not deliver this change, then they should be shown the door. My vote in 2010 and 2012 will heavily factor in the results from health care reform – and I know I am not alone in this.
the problem is obama hasn't delievered hope or change and thne his omb says even before healthcare reform our defcit will be 9 trillion over 10 yrs, 2 trillion more than the orignal projections, and oh cash for clunkers, gee guess which two companies didn't benefit from it, why it would be chyrsler and gm, which saw a drop in sales, and if u want an example of universal health care not working, massachuettes, which can't afford the projected 1 billion plus shortfall it will have, and why when every member of this congress is asked, ok if you're going to go for the public option, then why don't u drop your government health care, it's becuase there plan they have is better, and now we find out medicare has been overpaying on wheelchairs, and if u want to drop insurance prices, then why not let these insurance companies compete across statelines
Posted By: coby preimesberger (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 02:06 AM
He better make this a good one. How many times has Obama tried to tell us about his plan, but at the end of the night we are left sitting on our couch's heads titled with that same look your dog gets when you try talking to them
However I got a question, if I currently have insurance through my work and I like it that's great. Please tell me once a public option is open what's stopping my employer from no longer covering me in order to save money and now I'm stuck with the public option. I mean I know there's no way the Obama would mean for that to happen so what's stopping it?
Posted By: Guest (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 02:06 AM
This article makes a lot of sense.
Posted By: Swoop (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 09:14 AM
Born Alive Protection Act. Enough said. This man has NO moral authority to dictate health care changes under some guise of "compassion". He has none. Besides that, what the fu*k is the President of the United States doing spending so much time on health care???? We have doctors for that, not schmuck politicians. What a joke. Defend the country and then get out of the way. We'll handle our problems at the state levels. Boooo!
Posted By: Da Man (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 09:42 AM
'Health care reform unquestionably had a rough summer, thanks to public confusion engineered by right-wing scaremongering and the administration's belated response.'
Thank you for saving me the time of reading your article. I love how anyone who is against Obamas health care is now a confused person due to those evil 'scaremongers'.
Posted By: Guest#0113 (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Currently, there is nothing stopping your employer from denying you health insurance, but if the public option passed, not only could you get insurance yourself with a local company, but you can go for the public option as well.
Posted By: JF (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 10:31 AM
"ok if you're going to go for the public option, then why don't u drop your government health care, it's becuase there plan they have is better"
And the public option is supposed to be for people who have no other option. Why would you say to the uninsured, "Sorry, were not doing a public option because it's not as good as the one Congress has. Now you get nothing,"?
"Please tell me once a public option is open what's stopping my employer from no longer covering me in order to save money and now I'm stuck with the public option"
That's a rather cynical way to look at it, given that if the employer wants to cut costs, they'll cut your coverage whether a public option exists or not. The existence of a public option doesn't matter to their bottom line.
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on September 03, 2009 at 10:33 AM
Coby - The point of the option is to provide a "minimum required baseline". We WANT people that have good insurance to keep their plan - the reasoning that would allow the average American that is happy with their plan to stay with it is the same reasoning that has Congresspeople keeping their plan. Again - "If you're happy with your plan, you keep it".
Guest - If it is financially better for a company to offer the public option rather than their own insurance they should do so, shouldn't they? How is this any different from the current scenario, where insurance benefits are a perk of the job? Not every employer offers a benefits package CURRENTLY...
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 10:40 AM
JD Dunn said: "The existence of a public option doesn't matter to their bottom line."
Hypothetical example to show you otherwise:
Small business with 20 employees and $1 million annual payroll ($50k average salary per employee). Also pays $10,000 per year per employee for health insurance (about the national average I think).
Total insurance cost $200,000.
Obamacare comes along with it's 8% penalty for non coverage.
I'm the boss. You know what I do? Drop everyone's coverage (save $200,000) pay the 8% penalty (cost 80,000) and give everyone a 10% raise, just to soften the blow (cost 100,000).
Overall savings to me as the company owner? $20,000! What business owner WOULDN'T do this in the middle of a crappy economic cycle?
Unfortunately each employee will take home less (they only get a $5,000 raise each, but now they will have to pay for their own insurance, which will cost MORE than $5,000) AND their current coverage goes bye-bye, which kills the "if you like your coverage you get to keep it" argument the president is trying to push.
Less $$$ in each worker's pocket, loss of coverage they liked. Sorry, but when over 70% of the country is HAPPY with their current situation, that's not a winning plan!
Posted By: Eric (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 01:05 PM
J. Alexander Mitchell - if the "minimum required baseline" was just catastrophic care, I would be right there with you.
But you know the "baseline" will be loaded up with costly additional mandates, because the clowns in Washington D.C. can't control themselves!
Posted By: Eric (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 01:07 PM
Eric - in your 8% example... what is stopping an employer from doing that now? If that employer wanted to cut costs right now, they could simply drop everyone's insurance coverage and save the full $200,000 rather than $20,000, AND the employees would go uncovered.
The best argument I can see is that, right now, if a company did that they'd be unable to attract the best workers. Same scenario in the reformed situation - if a company wants the best workers, they will have to offer insurance above and beyond the minimums required for the public option.
In reference to what the minimums are, I believe that we can only talk about what hypothetically would be in place, since there is not a single bill. I will note that the mandatory minimums outlined in the Patients Choice Act are very similar to those outlined in the various House bills. From here, we can have real discussion - do we need more than Catastrophic care?
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 01:30 PM
Lets see, name calling for anyone who disagrees with goverment fucking up health care. Check
Dishonest speaking for Jesus. Check
Lying about goverment intervention involving current people who are happy with their health care policies.(what do you call goverment bearucracy panels deciding whether your policy is good enough?)check
Stating that this will save us billions.(CBO disagrees)check
Bush bashing.Check
Yep, typical Zimmer article.
Posted By: John (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 01:32 PM
Don't believe we need to overhaul the healthcare system in the country? Go to your local emergency room on any given weekend. For every 10 patients, 6 will not pay their bill. Who pays it? People that have insurance will see their rates go up. I know. I work in a hospital and my rates have gone up every year for the past 10 years. Let's get the facts straight before people start bringing up crap that has nothing to do with the debate. It's not about healthcare...it's all about who won the election. The hate in this country is running at an all time high. If you don't have a plan to help, shut the hell up.
Posted By: Jericho Drumm (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 02:11 PM
"Dishonest speaking for Jesus. Check"
Matthew 25:34-40
"Stating that this will save us billions.(CBO disagrees)check"
Actually, they don't. They're measuring the savings of this plan versus inaction.
If I have a hole in my pocket through which a $20 bill drops every few steps I take, and I decide to buy a new pair of pants for $50, you can't just say that the pair of pants cost $50. You have to factor in the cost of not getting the new pair.
The public option adds $24 billion to the deficit per year, but at the end of the decade projections for current healthcare cost trends are far beyond that.
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on September 03, 2009 at 02:36 PM
Matthew 25:34-40
Stop foisting your Judeo-Christian morals on me!
Posted By: Guest#9191 (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 03:34 PM
My main opposition to the health care plan is that obama has no idea how the health care system works. Having a politician design health care reform who has never worked on the front lines of health care makes about as much sense as letting a 19 year old design health care reform.
Posted By: Taylor (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 04:35 PM
JD that Bible verse is about voluntary charity towards your fellow man, not the government taking your earnings by force and giving it to someone else.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 04:41 PM
Great article Robert.
Posted By: Mr. Ramon (Registered) on September 03, 2009 at 05:38 PM
Actually, they don't. They're measuring the savings of this plan versus inaction.
If I have a hole in my pocket through which a $20 bill drops every few steps I take, and I decide to buy a new pair of pants for $50, you can't just say that the pair of pants cost $50. You have to factor in the cost of not getting the new pair.
The public option adds $24 billion to the deficit per year, but at the end of the decade projections for current healthcare cost trends are far beyond that.
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on September 03, 2009 at 02:36 PM
Wrong and you know your wrong,
Washington Post July 17th, from the head of the CBO:Though President Obama and Democratic leaders have repeatedly pledged to alter the soaring trajectory -- or cost curve -- of federal health spending, the proposals so far would not meet that goal, Elmendorf said, noting, "The curve is being raised." His remarks suggested that rather than averting a looming fiscal crisis, the measures could make the nation's bleak budget outlook even worse
I know, you will bring up the idiotic 150 billion remark that has been proven wrong over and over. Here is the checkmate response from the same article:Elmendorf responded: "No, Mr. Chairman." Although the House plan to cover the uninsured, for example, would add more than $1 trillion to federal health spending over the next decade, according to the CBO, it would trim about $500 billion from existing programs -- increasing federal health spending overall.
Some provisions of the bill have the potential to trim spending further, Elmendorf said, but "the changes that we have looked at so far do not represent the sort of fundamental change, the order of magnitude that would be necessary, to offset the direct increase in federal health costs that would result from the insurance coverage proposals."
Thats a extra 500 billion, at the very least Dunn. Look, This thing is a turd, everyone got a whiff and agrees it stinks and now the liberal apologists are trying to spin this to save the messiah from smelling like shit. End of story. I win, you lose.
Posted By: John (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 05:42 PM
By the way Dunn, do you honestly think its charity for the goverment to take money out of my pocket and give it to some fat ass laying on his couch, watching Oprah? You live in a warped world.
Posted By: John (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 06:34 PM
John: There are no less than six plans out there... which plan exactly is a "turd"?
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 07:22 PM
Charity enforced is not charity.
Posted By: Guest#9306 (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 08:54 PM
J.Alexander,
You still denying that Barrack said that electric rates "will necessarily skyrocket under cap and trade?"
Posted By: John (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 09:09 PM
"JD that Bible verse is about voluntary charity towards your fellow man, not the government taking your earnings by force and giving it to someone else."
Ok so by that logic the government should stop collecting revenue altogether. I mean why should I pay for the mail to be delivered to your house? why should i pay for the police to protect you? why should i pay for your children's education? why should i pay for your retirement?
the fact is, passing these bills will not turn america into a stalinist nightmare state. government exists for the purpose of taking collective resources and fulfilling needs that private citizens and/or corporations cant or won't fulfill. zimmer actually put it pretty nicely when he said that insurance companies and the healthcare industry as a whole has had decades to fix these problems, so now the government is stepping up to try its hand at it.
and you know what? if it dosnt work, then just repeal it and try something else. laws arent permanent.
Posted By: jlevysan (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 09:39 PM
"Ok so by that logic the government should stop collecting revenue altogether. I mean why should I pay for the mail to be delivered to your house? why should i pay for the police to protect you? why should i pay for your children's education? why should i pay for your retirement?"
Government should only be involved in basic services, and I am perfectly fine with paying taxes for things like roads and police. I personally don't like the idea of public education and I think the system should be replaced by private ones, with charitable schools available for those who can't afford it. I also am against SS and government pension plans; you should provide for your own retirement.
"the fact is, passing these bills will not turn america into a stalinist nightmare state. government exists for the purpose of taking collective resources and fulfilling needs that private citizens and/or corporations cant or won't fulfill."
No it doesn't. It exists to bring some order to society and punish people who interfere with the life, liberty or property of another person. Also, I'd say that putting the IRS in charge of who has insurance and who doesn't is damn scary.
"zimmer actually put it pretty nicely when he said that insurance companies and the healthcare industry as a whole has had decades to fix these problems, so now the government is stepping up to try its hand at it."
Once again that's not correct. Government has caused this mess. Health insurance rates and care costs began to skyrocket when Medicare began cutting the amount they would pay for services and providers started making up the difference by boosting prices for private insurance patients. Insurance policy prices started to jump when employees no longer paid the premiums themselves but took advantage of employer subsidies to get more expensive policies, along with using insurance for every visit to the doctor and state governments demanding that certain conditions be covered under the policies (and those are often politically motivated demands). Also, government is the source of the lack on competition. You can't buy policies across state lines. A great example of this is California. There are over 1300 insurance companies i the US; in Cali you can only choose from 6.
"and you know what? if it dosnt work, then just repeal it and try something else. laws arent permanent."
That is the most naive statement I have heard in a long time. Once you open the door, you can't shut it. It is imppossible to get rid of government programs, no matter how inefficient they are; there are too many lobbyists and public employees at stake once a program is started to kill it off. Goverment is like spray foam, once it leaves the can it keeps expanding
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 10:08 PM
John: I'll repeat my question, as it is on topic. Given that there are six possible avenues including the PCA, which one are you talking about as a "turd"? I was under the impression that there was not a particular singular plan...
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 11:10 PM
J Alexander, which plan is it that you like? The one that HAS been made public, or the pie in the sky plans that haven't?
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 11:28 PM
J.Alexander,
I have responded, it didn't make it through, in my opinion HR 3200 is a big steaming pile.
Posted By: John (Guest) on September 03, 2009 at 11:35 PM
Why would anyone believe that Obama could do anything right when he has such poor judgement to appoint comunist, 911 truther, hateful, race baiter Van Jones to a czar position? You know czars who run things without going through confirmation hearings. What a joke!
Posted By: Guest#3791 (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 02:24 AM
I wonder what happens to the opinion polls if the words "public option" are replaced with "government option"
I bet they sink like a stone.
Posted By: Eric (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 07:37 AM
"I wonder what happens to the opinion polls if the words "public option" are replaced with "government option"
From Quinnipiac: 23. Do you support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a *government* health insurance plan that would compete with private plans?
Support 62-percent
Oppose 32-percent
DK/NA 06-percent
From Time:
[Would you support a program which] Creates a *government sponsored* public health insurance option to compete with private health insurance plans?
56-support
36-oppose
8-dk/na
The key buzzword in the question is not *government* but "option." When you take that out, support goes down.
In fact, the only major poll that doesn't show at least a plurality of support for the public option is the Rasmussen poll, and it's important to note they had George W. Bush's approval at nearly 15 points above the average of other polls near the end of his term.
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on September 04, 2009 at 01:11 PM
John: I don't support any particular plan, as I cited in my last article. I do support a number of ideas tossed around by both sides of the aisle, particularly a public option. I think that it is a bad idea to focus on any one plan until we get a clear direction about what is going to happen.
I'll read HR3200 and get back to ya.
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 01:16 PM
"Wrong and you know your wrong,
Washington Post July 17th, from the head of the CBO:Though President Obama and Democratic leaders have repeatedly pledged to alter the soaring trajectory -- or cost curve -- of federal health spending, the proposals so far would not meet that goal, Elmendorf said, noting, "The curve is being raised." His remarks suggested that rather than averting a looming fiscal crisis, the measures could make the nation's bleak budget outlook even worse
I know, you will bring up the idiotic 150 billion remark that has been proven wrong over and over. Here is the checkmate response from the same article:Elmendorf responded: "No, Mr. Chairman." Although the House plan to cover the uninsured, for example, would add more than $1 trillion to federal health spending over the next decade, according to the CBO, it would trim about $500 billion from existing programs -- increasing federal health spending overall.
Some provisions of the bill have the potential to trim spending further, Elmendorf said, but "the changes that we have looked at so far do not represent the sort of fundamental change, the order of magnitude that would be necessary, to offset the direct increase in federal health costs that would result from the insurance coverage proposals."
Elmendorf was commenting on a specific bill, not the idea of the public option itself. That's where the $150 billion figure comes in. The CBO projects with a strong public option, not the watered-down version in the House bill, that there could be as much as $150 billion in savings.
Further, Elmendorf specifically ignores the savings in payments that could be saved with IMAC. The reason he doesn't find savings is because he ignores them unless they have concrete numbers. There's no way to know how much IMAC could save, but we know that it's significant. The CBO treats the number as zero in lieu of hard statistical evidence.
I'm not saying that's an incorrect philosophy to have, given that the CBO isn't in the business of speculation, but one must take that into account when assessing the CBO's value.
Btw, have you seen the CBO's estimates on what will be saved through tort reform and state-to-state competition?
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on September 04, 2009 at 01:25 PM
"By the way Dunn, do you honestly think its charity for the goverment to take money out of my pocket and give it to some fat ass laying on his couch, watching Oprah?"
The original passage was about the *spirit* of giving. You said it was a dishonest invocation of Jesus. I responded with a quote on Jesus' philosophy.
Can you find me a passage that says, "Thou shalt not give to thy neighbor if he lieth on the couch watching Oprah."?
Why is it suddenly evil for a government to behave in the manner in which Jesus instructs?
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on September 04, 2009 at 01:32 PM
"Health care reform is a moral imperative"
This is a terrible argument for any policy, and I hope Obama steers clear of it. Morality is highly subjective, and by nature not open to factual support. If abortion opponents have to check their morality at the door when pushing for laws, then so does everyone else.
"Health insurance reform is designed to be deficit-neutral"
Figures please. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are all in precarious financial shape. I see no reason to give the benefit of the doubt here.
"We need less of Professor Obama and more of the man who inspired tens of millions to believe in hope again."
I think that is exactly wrong. As one of the angry Obama voters, the last thing I want to hear is more soaring rhetoric with no substance. Tell me why the status quo is unacceptable or unsustainable. Then give me a better idea. Then bore me to tears with details on how you will get it done in a responsible manner. If I hear more "yes we can" style bluster in that speech, I will turn it off and throw in the towel on this man. I just want him to quit hedging and spell out exactly what he thinks needs to be done, rather than posturing to claim that the bill he ends up with is the one he wanted so he can declare victory.
Posted By: Shockmaster (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 02:22 PM
Dunn,
Tell me how Jesus would approve of a third party taking the fruits of one mans labor and giving it to someone who has not earned it?That's not charity and you know better.
Maybe you and your left wing friends ought to look into not coveting other peoples things.
Posted By: John (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 03:30 PM
JD, the house bill, as of now is the only game in town, that our elected represenatives have actually had the stones to make public. That plan has been crapped on by the CBO. They've scored it, and determined that it simply isn't a cost-effective measure, in other words, it's not *reform* at all. Now again, there are other bills out there, but no one knows about them because none of them have been put forth to us (you know the people that are supposed to pay for all of it?). Maybe the democrat controlled senate has a better version, of course I'm not holding my breath.
And you can whine and moan about republicans not offering solutions, but nothing they say or do will be able to stop the democrats from doing whatever they want. Elections have consequences, and this is one of them, and this article is just more evidence that folks on the left like Zimmer are nothing more than cheerleaders for Obama, and don't really care if this health care "reform" is a good idea or not, no matter how much evidence is put forth that it isn't. Chris Matthews just last night, flat out said, all he wants is a bill. Just a bill. Doesn't matter if it's good, or bad or anything. And the reason isn't because he thinks ANY bill will be good for the country, but it will be good for Barack Obama. Public option or not, he will be able to claim victory if he signs a "healthcare bill" Those actions will have consequences too, as democrats are losing ground all over the place in polls for 2010. That's a long ways off, but the fact still will remain at the end of the day, the vast majority of americans are satisfied with their health coverage. It goes back to consequences.
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 04:42 PM
The only reason "most people are satisfied with their coverage" is because most people don't get sick very often. They'll find that when they do get diagnosed with a costly disease and their "previously stable" insurance company balks at covering it, their satisfaction level will go down.
Insurance companies are in it for record profits. They are not in it for the public interest. I wouldn't care if the public option was scrapped it it meant a cap on the profit of health insurance CEOs and other cost controls as well as pre-existing condition discrimination and rescissions outlawed.
If they can force the private companies to behave ethically, we don't need a public option, since that's the only reason it needs to exist.
Posted By: Zack (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 06:44 PM
Yep zach, the statistical genius that you prove to be, all 300 million americans that currently have health coverage, are all just lucky to not get sick. All of those satisfied customers, have NEVER gotten sick. Makes a lot of statistical sense. I'm sure my girlfriend who just had most of her stomach removed the other night will suddenly become dis-satisfied with the coverage she has. I mean after all, she's sick. Truth is, her coverage is going to cover it all. A happy customer. Got news for ya... vast majority are like that, and I for one am damn glad for it. But I understand, that these kind of stories get overlooked, because the bad stories, no matter how few times they happen in the grand scheme of it all, will always get the publicity. But I suspect we agree that our health care system does need reformed, we just disagree that Obamacare is the answer to the problems.
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 09:23 PM
Your girlfriend is very lucky that the folks employed solely to find a reason not to pay for her care were unable to do so. I'm happy for her.
Isn't that exactly what I said, though?
Posted By: Zack (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 10:24 PM
Actually, no, I didn't clarify it in my OP like I should have. Apologies gwpbrian.
I am glad so many people of different political persuasions can at least have a civil discussion and agree that something needs to change.
Posted By: Zack (Guest) on September 04, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Competition is the bedrock of capitalism, just not artificial competition by the government who's design is to undercut insurance companies to the point where the "public option" is the only option.
Posted By: peeps (Guest) on September 05, 2009 at 04:00 AM
Hey Zimmer, you mean a month and a half later, Obama already has to come back and get this pushed through?
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on October 27, 2009 at 11:45 PM
STAY CURRENT