Obama Accentuates the Positive

Posted by Jason Douglas on 09.11.2009

Shockmaster removes his helmet and breaks down Obama's health care speech. Does it cure our ills, or is it a prescription for financial ruin?

Since most of you have read my comments as Shockmaster I'll skip the personal introduction. It's great to be a writer here at 411 after years of enjoying the site. While both sides of the political aisle will be subject to my scrutiny, I won't make cheap, blanket attacks for the sake of stirring emotions. If you agree with me, great. If you come away disagreeing but respecting how I argue a point, that's great too. Being agreed with is a nice stroke for the ego, but I derive far more enjoyment from moments when I think "that's a great point" or "I never thought of it that way". I will refrain from the use of obscenities, and I ask that you do the same in your comments. Civility promotes a meaningful exchange of ideas, name calling does not. On with the show.

Barack Obama delivered quite a speech for health care legislation. He concentrated his effort on highlighting the aspects of reform which are almost certain to be included in a final bill and reach his desk. He went as far as to state that while numerous Presidents have tried to pass health care reform, he intends to be the last. If you score the speech on political points alone, it was a huge success. If you compare what he intends to achieve with the level of reform which is needed, not so much.

Ending the ability to drop those who have paid for their policies is a great improvement, as well as capping yearly or lifetime payments for treatment. The point that the uninsured cost all of us money was also a valid one, and a logical argument for providing an option so they pay something into the system. He did a very good job of partitioning his speech into two distinct parts. He stated that everything he had said to that point was fact and no one was disputing the need for the changes he had listed. This ensured that no matter what dissension there is on many of his plans, it must be conceded that he is bringing meaningful reform. He is poised to claim a political victory whether he substantively fixes the system or not.

In the second part of his speech, Obama fudged a few things. He claimed that he was saving four trillion dollars in the long term with his plan. That number seemed to be pulled from the sky. There was also a very ominous statement that if the plan created deficits that spending would be cut to keep it "deficit neutral". Cuts where exactly? When he stated that the pharmaceutical industry initially opposed reform, he didn't mention they came on board only with the promise of no price negotiations, the single biggest cost saver we could implement. His worst mistake in style was advocating policy by default. The absence of an alternative does not make a lone idea a good one. Even if you believe the GOP are just obstructionists, that's not an argument for what's on the table.

Health care reform is about two basic principles needing to coexist: people deserve treatment when they're sick, and that treatment must be fiscally feasible if it is to be realized. The President made a logical, practical and sound case for the first principle. On the second principle, he pretty much punted. The fiscal realities of his promises will be debated for weeks. What cannot be debated is that the underlying causes of skyrocketing overall costs were not adequately addressed here. It appears to me that since Obama openly dismissed a single payer system as a possibility, and has allowed real price negotiation to be blocked, our nation will have to revisit this issue after it becomes an even larger percentage of our economy and the devastation will already have occurred. He pointed out that the uninsured gain great leverage by pooling together. So why shouldn't that principle be utilized on a national level? The speech was a fine attempt to sell the illusion of a problem being solved, when in reality we are getting one more band-aid.