Liveblogging Obama's health speech
This is my liveblog of the Obama healthcare speech. Scroll down to the bottom and read up to follow the speech as it happened...
2107: He concludes by saying: "We can do great things, and... here and now we will meet history's test... that is our calling, that is our character." He's down on the floor now, shaking hands, a brief kiss for Hillary Clinton. He looks more serious now than when he came in. I expect he'll be waiting for those overnight private polls. It seemed to go down pretty well in the chamber, but it's how Americans receive it over the next few hours and days that really counts.
2103: Glenn Beck may like this: "We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." I'm sure the echo of Marx is an accident...
2102: We're near the end now - and this it, the president's big thought: when any government is subject to scorn, when efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American, when timidity passes for wisdom, we lose something essential about ourselves.
2058: The president prays in aid an absent friend - Teddy Kennedy. He says the late senator's passion for healthcare was not born out of rigid ideology, but from his experience of having two children stricken with cancer. And he says Mr Kennedy's large-heartedness was "not Republican or Democrat", but "part of the American character". The president includes in the American character "an acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver."
2054: Big grin from the president and a long period of clapping when he adopts the Republicans' idea for reforming medical malpractice laws. He's going to go ahead with a Bush initiative to test the idea in individual states.
2051: Reassurance aimed at America's seniors about scary stories and tall tales. Not a dollar of Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan, he says. But the system is full of waste and abuse and reducing this will - he claims - pay for most of the plan. That's definitely a promise that needs more scrutiny. For two decades, I've watched politicians promise their plan can be paid for by eliminating waste - it never really seems to happen.
2046: "I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice." So is the public option a must, or a possibility? I think this is what we used to call in the Northern Ireland peace talks "constructive ambiguity".
2045: Hurrahs and another very brief standing ovation, as he mentions the P-word - a public option. But a message to his "progressive friends": the public option would only be a means to an end to prevent insurance company abuses. "We should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal." Translation: I'd like it, but we'll have to drop it. His progressive friends remain seated.
2043: The mood changes slightly when he says that it is false to claim that illegal immigrants would be covered under his plan. Someone shouts out, "That's a lie." There are boos - whether at the president or the shouter, I can't tell.
2040: Now a bit of reassurance and some attack - he has a go at what he calls "bogus claims" about bureaucrats who'd kill off senior citizens. Sarah Palin repeated this in a newspaper article this morning. He calls the claim "cynical and irresponsible - a lie plain and simple."
2036: A thumbs-up from a beaming John McCain, who rises to his feet as the president promises to adopt his idea for low-cost coverage for americans who can't get insurance because of pre-existing medical conditions. But what of those who want to take the risk and go without coverage? It's irresponsible behaviour he says, which costs everyone else. Under his plan, everybody would have to be insured, just as with car insurance.
2034: More promises: "What this plan will do is make the insurance you have work better for you" - perhaps the most important part of the speech. The president pledges that as soon he signs the bill it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny coverage because of a pre-existing condition. It will be against the law to drop people when they get sick. They won't be able to put an "arbitrary" cap on the cost of coverage for a year or a lifetime. There will be a limit on how much patients will be expected to pay themselves. And companies will have to pay for routine check-ups, for breast cancer and the like...
2032: Here's the guts of it. He promises that no-one who has health insurance will lose it: "Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have." And for those who don't have insurance or those who lose or change their job, a promise that they will get coverage. How? I suspect we're about to find out.
2028: The soundbite of the evening I guess: "The time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action." And just before, he neatly blames confusion over his plans on scare tactics and those who want to score short-term political points. We're getting to the meat in a minute...
2024: This is a pitch for the middle ground. He's stressing the people who are one accident or one illness away form bankruptcy, but are not on welfare - middle class Americans. He gives the example of a woman whose insurance company cancelled her policy when she got breast cancer, because she'd forgotten to declare she once had acne. "That is heartbreaking, it is wrong, and no-one should be treated that way in the United States of America." Another standing ovation.
2019: The president moves through the throng smiling broadly, clapping shoulders and giving clasping, lingering handshakes. His wife, in a special first lady's box, looks nervous, far more nervous than him, but he is already on stage.
2015: The chamber is filled with the dark suits of the nation's senior politicians, brightened by occasional splashes of red, blue, orange and yellow from the jackets of female politicians.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~14~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Thanks, Mark; I am looking at the liveblogging thread and all good remarks so far...
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment
2024:
I think that President Obama is trying to reach for the middle ground in this ongoing debate...
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment
Mark:
That is good news, the end of bickering needs to end....I would like to figure; What has to become the solution to the problem..
=D=
Complain about this comment
Good points on medicare.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Mardell,
This live-blogging is nice but you've forgotten one thing. This is your 11th post about the US but you've done none about Canada so far. There are 310 mil. Americans & 34 mil. Canucks, so it is clearly past time for you to write about them. Thanks in advance...
Complain about this comment
Mark,
As a former Brit and staunch Republican it was interesting to see the President move to the middle ground at last. For far to long the left wing progressives in Congress have held the public's interest as they battled with the centrist silent majority, silent no more. It also was very amusing to see the hard left sitting down at various times as he made his centrist move.
Complain about this comment
I should know this, but it's getting late here and I don't want to go searching for it now. Was that in Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts? On Alienation? Or should I be looking somewhere else? Engels said something similar about educating children, didn't he? Help requested.
(Oh dear, hope Glenn Beck doesn't read this blog.)
Complain about this comment
Think emphasising points about "the American character" particularly struck a chord with me. I've always asked what kind of country who has the means to provide universal healthcare but doesn't. I'm intrigued Obama is provoking Americans to think about what kind of character do they have. Such moral points provide for memorable speeches too, much more than invoking "history's test".
Complain about this comment
Mark,
I might also add that if the President thinks he has ANY chance at tort reform then he is going to have to fight an uphill battle against the almost to a man (woman) attorneys that make up the bulk of the Congress. In order to get into Congress you have to have millions and guess who has the millions, attorneys.
Complain about this comment
FYI,
Bill O'Reilly seems to like the speech, will be interesting to hear Hannity's view and wait until Limbaugh gets on the radio in the morning..
Complain about this comment
I thought President Obama's speech was good and if he'd ended it after reading Kennedy's letter it would have been great. The last few minutes where he rambled about character weren't up to the same standard as the rest of it.
I liked his effort to enlist both parties in the effort and his statement about an open door and listening to ideas to improve the plan but not allowing time to be wasted by those determined to kill it.
I liked that he has given up trying to pass reform legislation ina hurry and will be now be allowing the time to do it right.
I liked that he was clear, he was on target, he made a convincing case for the need for reform and how it could be achieved. I think he made his point and will win over a lot of skeptics.
I was not impressed by his plan to pay for reform. To his credit he did pledge it would not add to the deficit but his plan to pay for it all by cost savings in Medicare and the health industry did not seem credible.
I was also disappointed that although he tipped the hat to the idea of reducing malpractice insurance costs he then carefully tip toed around actually endorsing tort reform as part of the plan. If he wants to be taken seriously that he's open to ideas to improve the reform plan and win bi-partisan support then he's going to have to compromise, the lawyer's lobby not withstanding.
Complain about this comment
Squirellist --
Is this the one:
"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living."
It's from The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Seems quite appropriate, particularly the weight of the dead generations bit. Though in this case, perhaps it should be "the weight of the almost dead generations."
Complain about this comment
Cracking speech, and I loved your comment about constructive ambiguity- that's exactly what it is!
I think the surprise of tort reform/malpractice may have won over independent voters- crucial to him getting the support of blue dog democrats. Moving to the centre makes sense politically since it isolates further the Republicans.
His little bit about talking to seniors directly- clearly aimed at 2010 Midterms when seniors turn out and the young voters may not. That may not have been quite enough- just saying efficiency without listing examples- was a weak part of the speech for me. I thought he looked most uncomfortable talking in this section. BUT
I am now convinced that he will get a bill with most of what he wants. The reality of the situation is that American healthcare is so bad, so poorly constructed that even getting most of what he wants is good enough to measurably and noticeably improve the situation.
Complain about this comment
#12 Scott-
You missed out in his explanation to pay for it all- the fact that if he's wrong there is a contingency plan.
One of the boldest things I thought was that he said that if expected savings did not materialise- then he would have to cut spending, because he would write it into the bill. So even if you are right, and he is wrong (and I would point out that he has a much larger team of experts at this point), and the plan doesn't pay for itself, he has to make spending cuts, so that it will.
That won't be popular when the time comes- but for now, it gives democrats a powerful argument against the allegation that the savings won't be as much as Obama is hoping.
Complain about this comment
I can't remember any other President so clearly framing an issue as a legislative matter instead of trying to fight for it in the public sector. He was addressing the members of Congress and not so much the American people.
Interesting idea.
Complain about this comment
"I'm sure the echo of Marx is an accident..."
A very distant echo, I would say.
Complain about this comment
12. At 03:07am on 10 Sep 2009, chronophobe:
What a pity Obama's speechwriters haven't come across The eighteenth brumaire. . .
Couldn't be better, could it? I think I'll get the bus to Highgate Cemetery tomorrow and put a red rose on his grave, just for that.
Complain about this comment
Obama WAs lying. Here are parts of the house bills to prove it "
Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill – a Government committee (good luck with that!) will decide what treatments/benefits a person may receive.
Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE WILL BE RATIONED! (We all knew this, because health care is rationed in Canada and Britain, but Obama kept saying it would not be).
Pg 42 of HC Bill – The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you. You will have no choice!
PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise.
Pg 58 HC Bill – Government will have real-time access to individual’s finances and a National ID Healthcard will be issued!
Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Government will have direct access to your bank accts for election funds transfer
PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community organizations (read: ACORN).
Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Government will create an HC Exchange to bring private HC plans under Government control.
PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Government mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the Exchange.
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specifics of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Government will ration your Healthcare!
PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Government mandates linguistic appropriate services. Example - Translation for illegal aliens.
Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Government will use groups, i.e. ACORN & Americorps, to sign up individuals for Government HC plan.
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specifics of Benefit Levels for Plans. AARP members - your Health care WILL be rationed.
-PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.
pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue Government on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Government Monopoly.
pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ AMA - The Government will tell YOU what you can earn.
Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public option plan. NO CHOICE.
Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families.
Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Employer with payroll $400k & above who does not provide public option pays 8% tax on all payroll.
pg 150 Lines 9-13 Businesses with payroll between $251k & $400k who don’t provide public option pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.
Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesn’t have acceptable HC according to Government will be taxed 2.5% of income.
Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.)
Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (the GOVERNMENT) will have access to ALL Americans’ finances and personal records.
PG 203 Line 14-15 HC - "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" Yes, it says that.
Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected.
Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill – Doctors – doesn’t matter what specialty – will all be paid the same.
PG 253 Line 10-18 Government sets value of Doctor’s time, professional judgment, etc. Literally, value of humans.
PG 265 Sec 1131Government mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries.
PG 268 Sec 1141 Federal Government regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs.
PG 272 SEC. 1145. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!
Page 280 Sec 1151 The Government will penalize hospitals for what Government deems preventable readmissions.
Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Doctors who treat a patient during initial admission that results in a readmission - Government will penalize you.
Pg 317 L 13-20 OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Government tells Doctors what/how much they can own.
Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion - Government will mandate hospitals cannot expand.
pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can u say ACORN?!
Pg335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339 - Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures which of course forces health care rationing.
Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Adv Plans, HMOs, etc., forcing people into Government plan.
Pg 354 Sec 1177 - Government will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people!
Pg 379 Sec 1191 Government creates more bureaucracy - Telehealth Advisory Committee. HC by phone.
Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The Government will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.
PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life.
Pg 469 - Community Based Home Medical Services/Non profit orgs. (ACORN Medical Services here?)
Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT
TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION. 1 monthly payment to a community-based organization. (Like ACORN?)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Obama is well known for making pretty speeches but when it comes down to it he usually says one thing and then does another. He cannot be trusted. Read the House bills and you will see the provisions that he says DO NOT exit...Yes ..they do.... panels to decide your fate...rationed care.....insuring ALL illegals.... policies that Americans do NOT want and will NOT accept.... The Mainstream media in America and many European outlets are so in love with Obama they cannot even report the truth. Thats why their ratings are going down the drain !!!
Complain about this comment
What is amazing, in light of this man's long, established history of lying with an utterly straight, sober face, is that you folks believe a word of anything this egotistical liar says. Is that because you agree with him ideologically, so you convince yourselves that he's trustworthy? Is it you exhibiting your own form of international wishful thinking?
Fact is, the U.S. cannot afford to insure every one of its citizens, let alone the millions of felons who have broken the law by smuggling themselves into our nation to become our unofficial slave class/economic drug of choice. Obama only wants one thing: power.
Complain about this comment
ahh, the nutbars have arrived. Howdy boys, soooo glad you could come.
Is there a page there that deals with letting people who want to throw themselves into financial ruin to deal with a serious illness do so? 'Cuz there should be. We could call it the 'Darwin option.'
Complain about this comment
A rousing speech straight from the heart. The whole speech was crafted so very carefully appealing to all Americans of every political persuasion to bury the hatchet, stop the bickering and 'make insurance xork better for you'. The line 'if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with choice' really hit a chord.
Complain about this comment
Since I'm already weary of emails asking me to 'rewrite' a post when I try to challenge a plainly wrong inference, I'm leaving, but with this translation, since if it was in the original French I'd be told to rewrite this as well:
"Through all this change, nothing alters."
It seems. Tonight.
Complain about this comment
To the posted comment above by junglejim123
I decided to check out just a few things about the health-care bill online. It seems clear that you must not have read it, and in fact it's quite funny how different the bill is to how you have portrayed it!
Let's take a simple example:
Your comment
"""
Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE WILL BE RATIONED! (We all knew this, because health care is rationed in Canada and Britain, but Obama kept saying it would not be).
"""
If one reads Pg 29, you are absolutely correct that it talks about "Limitations". Sounds ominous. But if you actually read the document, what it says is that what will be limited is the amount of money that you have to pay out of pocket!!! (i.e co-payments). The maximum amount you, as an individual, will have to front out-of-pocket is 5000 USD per year. There is no description of "health-care rationing" whatsoever.
Surely this is a cause for happiness! I can't see how you can have misinterpreted such a simple clause.
Let's take another example, the statement about illegal aliens. Here the text could not be any clearer:
"HR 3200 SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS: Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."
I hope you will spend some time to follow up on all the "claims" you have been making by actually reading the sections that you have been quoting.
Complain about this comment
Ref 18 junglejim123
Starvoyager 123, this is Huston Control. Please do not attempt to re-enter the earth's atmosphere at this time. Your angle of approach is too shallow. We'll get back to you with new coordinates. Stand by.
Complain about this comment
This speech was way-cool. Now I get it. This means the our elected (spread the wealth around) officials are going to have the same Health Plan as us commoners. I like it.
Complain about this comment
I think it is time that Barak go out and make a kill. Find some ugly opponent and bring back his bleeding head on a pole. Could be Uncle Rush, could be some lying congressman or that one who called him a liar during the speech.
The problem is, no one takes him seriously yet. He talks pretty, and he walks pretty, and he has a beautiful wife and perfect family, but those who need to do so find him easy to ignore.
In the blood and guts world in which he is now trying to claim power, it has always been necessary that the new alpha prove he is to be feared. Sorry folks, but to be effective with that crowd, he needs to prove himself in their terms. He must be taken seriously, because we need him badly.
KScurmudgeon
old enough to say such things
Complain about this comment
Please, my UK friends, don't let the American Conservative Nutjobs tm get under your skin. After a complete failure (Bush) of the conservative policies, it is natural that they turn that failure into hatred. Witness the uncontrolled childish outburst during the presidents speech. As junglejim #18 posted, the right-wing can makeup things and believe them. Hate is powerful. The president may just have to use the party-line vote to get this needed legislation. Sometimes you have to put the republican children in a corner and continue your work. We'll let them out, when they regain their composure.
Complain about this comment
Obama is right. This is about character. I'm glad he looked angry. He should be.
The American character has not distinguished itself this summer; it is a mean, childish and selfish character at best. That is how you have allowed yourselves to be portrayed to the world. So tiresome!
America, do yourselves a favour. Sit down and discuss the need to sort out your health care like mature, educated and smart adults. You just may find it to be a pleasant experience.
Complain about this comment
Nice rundown of the speech, many thanks to Mark for a good synopsis.
Just today I spent an hour of my time trying to explain that, no, I was not sedated for a medical procedure mid-summer. The billing lady tried to tell me that I was! "You forgot because you were sedated, silly man!" So I had to call my doc and get a copy of the surgeon's report to prove that they are wrong. I save my insurance company and myself $600. But the thing is see, that's not my job!
This is how the free market system works, from my experience: first it drains us of $ via sloppy mortgaging practices, and via finance charges for sloppy management of our retirement accounts, and via sloppy accounting for health care costs. Tort reform is not the real problem. The free market has failed to provide needed services at a reasonable cost (20% of GDP and rising is NOT reasonable!). I'd like another OPTION.
I gotta agree with curmudgeon: the only thing The Right is going to understand right now is Obama stepping with a very pointy heel on one of their own's family jewels, via their throat. Then post the political remains of one Republican, per entrance to Congress, as a reminder.
Complain about this comment
copperDolomite wrote: Obama is right. This is about character. I'm glad he looked angry. He should be. The American character has not distinguished itself this summer.
I was glad of his stern speech too, Copper. But don't judge us all by the radio loons and town hall screamers. Thousands of us have been quietly organizing for months, explaining the public plan option and the need for reform, while growing the REAL grassroots effort to pass this necessary legislation. The Astro-Turf disruptions ginned up by the insurance industry and their Republican operatives don't begin to compare. The majority of Americans see through the R's scare talk and desperation tactics. The people want facts. And the facts are all on our side. Don't count us out!
Complain about this comment
#6. i_amBritinUSA: "As a former Brit and staunch Republican" . . . . #10 "Bill O'Reilly seems to like the speech, will be interesting to hear Hannity's view . . ."
More interesting would be to know your views on the NHS, not its finances but whether you were well served by it. Presumably you have private insurance in the United States, but what did you have in the UK? I'm still a Brit but have lived here as a very good paying guest for more than forty years, returning to the UK frequently, so I do have intimate knowledge of both systems. Your own experiences would be of interest. As a "staunch Republican" who watches O'Reilly, Hannity and listens to Limbaugh, it would appear that you are not without bias. Why would that be? I watch the former two occasionally (because of moving am without a TV for the moment) but only to see what the opposition is saying, not to salivate over their words.
Complain about this comment
" Let's take another example, the statement about illegal aliens. Here the text could not be any clearer:
"HR 3200 SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS: Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.""
Actually, unless there is specific language in Obama's healthcare bill that EXCLUDES illegal aliens, illegal aliens will receive healthcare and they will NOT have to pay for it. And, these quotes from a closed La Raza meeting point out exactly how they intend to get it;
Saturday, June 27, 2009
RED ALERT -- La Raza: "If the American people found out..."
"Suzanne", a female caller to Mark Levin's show on June 25th, revealed the ominous secret of the Democrat health care reform effort.
I want to tell you that last week I attended a conference on health care reform sponsored by La Raza. And I will tell you that what they had to say, Mark, is scarier than anything that's been said so far on the health care plan.
The kind of comments that were made and the notes that I took... they started the conference out by saying "America does not need health care reform, but Latino immigrants need health care reform."
And someone from Menendez' office [Ed.: Sen. Robert Menendez, D-NJ] promised that he would make sure that "the useless barriers of citizenship would not be in this bill" and that he would make sure that they would use keywords like "streamline"...
It was La Raza, the Childrens Defense Fund and Senator Menendez from New Jersey, a representative from his office...
...Yes [they said they would get free health care for illegal aliens], these are my notes, Mark. They actually got up and said "Latino children need health care more than whites". And then they would say things like "you must go out into your communities, use words like 'streamline', use phrases like 'all workers' and 'all families'," because they said -- and I quote -- "If the American people find out that this bill is about giving health care to non-citizens, they will rise up against it."
...One of the quotes they said was, "We want to make sure we take care of barriers like verification, but we can streamline programs to the more affluent" and, quote, "Useless treatments for the elderly can be gone because we don't need to spend money for people who are going to die anyway."
That's a direct quote from that meeting. They also said, "We are very concerned there will be an effort to include" the illegal immigrants in this argument, so "we must make sure that we focus this" to the American people that it's looking like we want "health care for everyone".
And they also said that 75% of the children who will be picked up in this will be non-citizens and that 44% of the uninsured are non-citizens and they can't possibly allow the American people to know this." [Ed: Oops!]
Menendez' office said that he's going to make sure that "a family of four that makes $66,000 a year or less will pay nothing at all for the new health care. And he was the one who said he was going to get rid of specifics like "citizenship status" and focus on, quote, "equity for all workers".
And he said he's going to make sure that the Latino immigrants are the focus of the health care reform.
And La Raza said if they get this, they don't even care about amnesty, because they've fixed it so that ONE family member can apply for all extended family members. And... Mark, if you think we have a problem with illegal immigration now, wait 'til you see the borders when this thing gets passed.
"If the American people found out?"
Gee, what a surprise. A group that preaches racial superiority and divisiveness wants to enact a stealth illegal immigration bill -- not dissimilar to chain migration. The bill will reward illegal immigration to the direct detriment of all American taxpayers and especially the elderly.
Kind of puts Judge Sotomayor's membership in La Raza in a new light, doesn't it?
Groups like La Raza encourage the Balkanization of America. They promote mutually hostile political groups that do not form a "melting pot", that do not utilize a common language, and that do not share the principles of America's founding.
Fifty years from now, if La Raza gets its way, America will look more like Yugoslavia in 1993 than America.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/06/red-alert-la-raza-if-american-people.html
As for Factcheck.org being in the tank for Obama at every turn,
Factcheck is owned and operated by one of Obama's former employers,
Annenberg Foundation, to which he was appointed by his friend/comrade
domestic terrorist/bomber Bill Ayers.
Complain about this comment
Ref 30 copperDolomite
Too many people in the U.S. are acting like rabid, mindless Professional Wrestling fans. My team is better than your team, and your team is evil. There are any number of reasons for this. Primarily it has to do with an educational system designed in the 19th century that is far beyond being antiquated to meet the educational needs of the 21st century. Poor parenting skills and broken homes have been expotential for at least four generations, leading to an easy acceptance of anti-social behavior. The huge population shift from rural communities to urban/suburban centers negated acceptable social responsibility learned from living in a small community where everyone knew each other.
We have become a nation divided. The divisions reflect our fears. Our fears are generated from our ignorance. Mass communication brings us those who feed upon the ignorant for their own glorification. The ignorant follow blindly, yet think they are clever. Our society has become too complex for the ignorant to keep up with every issue; so they focus on a select group of fire-brand issues to vent their frustration.
Health care reform is one such issue.
Complain about this comment
I'm going back to my original motive for writing to Justin's blog. I wanted to explain conservative America to those of you on the coasts of this country and across the pond who really have lost all memory of what sincere conservatism was in your own societies.
You see the irrationality of a great democracy being distracted from serious business by foolish frippery and out-and-out lies. The press's duty should be laughing these baseless arguments off the stage, as should all sensible adults both in and out of government.
But our press, like yours, has degenerated into packs of roving jackals, always looking for a fresh carcass to tear, or for a momentary weakness to recast into a (hopefully) fatal slip in time to whet the 6:00 news.
These blatant distortions and falsehoods have strength that outlives their meager substance because they evoke deep wounds and fears that have moved through the nation for generations.
First, the first Black president must feel the blast of old racism - a mix of the normal jealousy and pride in one's own kind, and resentment born in the days when the South began to understand that their Jeffersonian agricultural paradise (for white landowners) must inevitably be overrun by the new economic power of manufacturing and finance growing in the North. When you have no other tools to defend yourself, you can still hate.
But more than that, Americans have never trusted the government, particularly the federal government, to do much good. Those of you in the US, is there any regional or social group that believes the government will do things right? Send floods of money your way, maybe, but get a job done the way it should be done - not. Many of us are now dependent on government projects or payrolls, but the closer you get to this monster, the less sense it makes.
Frustration with our inept, grasping, Byzantine health insurance system is easy to transfer to the palpably inept, Byzantine bureaucracy in Washington. Every horror and fear of socialist, communist, futurist, totalitarian power and bureaucratic intransigence is easy to project onto a government program that intends to restructure medical care, which is essential to every person's hope of happiness and health.
Euthanasia is anathema to many conservatives - human life is sacred, and not to be toyed with. Abortion is an abomination that brings curses on a nation, we believe, and yet somewhere in the east the government wants to provide it to any and all comers, and we hear that in Europe (and in the Pacific Northwest) the government sponsors it. And what is a 'hate crime'? I thought I had a constitutional right to my own opinion, so long as I kept my hands and guns to myself.
So when the smiling young black man in the elegant suit shows up in your yard saying "Hi! I'm Barak Obama. I'm from Washington and I'm here to help!" Yeah, you say, I know just what that means." In my office for years I had a sign posted of just such a man in suit and tie with briefcase in hand and the words 'Hi! I'm from the EPA, and I'm here to help.' I had my job because a degree in the history of Byzantium gave me the skills needed to answer such people and keep my employers from falling under their power.
Whether you are on the left or the right, if you don't look too deeply it is easy, even attractive to believe the worst about people you don't trust anyway. Your fears can gain form and apparent substance, and you begin to feel you might find a way to defend yourself and your own. You don't read or listen to what they say because it sounds threatening, and isn't in line with your understanding of how things should work.
A fair attempt to keep an open mind and give a thorough and balanced examination of these lies, or of President Obama's programs (I won't speak to what the Democratic leadership is trying to do), will easily show the lies for what they are, and the Administration's efforts to be well meaning and honest, at least. But just as middling America was tricked and cheated by the Bush administration, so they are now being manipulated and cheated by those who want the status quo to continue as long as smoke and mirrors and slight of hand can keep us under control.
I know this, but then I am a student of the ways of evil empires.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
#21. revjab: "Obama only wants one thing: power."
So what do other politicians want? Tell me that Committee chairmen don't enjoy their power to stall items. The President just happens to be the pinnacle of power and you can't change that, even by describing him as an egotistical liar. Name calling doesn't assist the debate, let alone your cause.
#24. squirrellist: "Since I'm already weary of emails asking me to 'rewrite' a post . . . I'm leaving"
Don't do that - see my post about sticks and stones on the previous thread.
Complain about this comment
34. At 06:22am on 10 Sep 2009, jmiller3331 wrote
'...Yes [they said they would get free health care for illegal aliens], these are my notes, Mark. They actually got up and said "Latino children need health care more than whites". And then they would say things like "you must go out into your communities, use words like 'streamline', use phrases like 'all workers' and 'all families'," because they said -- and I quote -- "If the American people find out that this bill is about giving health care to non-citizens, they will rise up against it." '
This sounds like a very typical political activity in the America I know. Everybody who has any aspirations to be heard does this. I applaud their efforts to mobilize their 'grass roots' and join the debate. What are you doing to be heard?
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
WhitewaterOregon and copperDolomite
Agree with both your points. I am an expat Brit and have been working the grassroots and there is more support than even the media will admit. However, the end of the speech really framed the issue when Obama talked about character and the morals of providing health care to those that can't afford it. When the camera panned you could see that the Republicans were not clapping. Hard to believe to us Europeans but that party know that their base do not feel a moral duty to support all of society. As Obama hinted, they think it unamerican to even acknowledge weakness, let alone have the government do something about it.
The saddest thing is that the middle ground that can be swayed are still fervently patriotic and will eventually have their buttons pushed by the US is best propaganda and the onslaught of lies. Unfortunately Obama can only hope that political expendiencey will be put aside. Not a chance - in Colorado we just turned blue so we can't even get our two Dem Senators to come out and support the public option.
Complain about this comment
To junglejim123, who is quoting verbatim from a wildly-circulated email "analysis" of the bill:
1. Calm down. Breath. Think.
2. What are you trying to do? Are you saying that today's healthcare system is so good that you don't want it touched? Is "do nothing" the way to go? If not, then what do you offer to make things better?
3. We all want things better. My "better" is not less patriotic than your "better".
4. Please, please, please, read things for yourself, and don't be spoonfed by anonymous, shouty, hysterical sources. Here is analysis from some people more qualified to comment than me or you, who don't feel the need to use the term "Nazi" even once! http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/
5. I know you don't agree with what you read in #4, but you read it, right? Isn't cool to be a reader?
6. Intellectually dissect what you read in #4. Improve the bill. How can we help more people for less money? Come on! It's an important debate! You're not dissing someone who cut you off in traffic.
Complain about this comment
37. David:
No. I'm tired. I can -- and have -- put up, like so many others, my (unashamedly socialist) take on how things are over here, and what people like me believe and how it affects some of us just in the hope of helping the debate along. And try to correct some of the worst misconceptions. But the practicalities are not really for me or people like me to propose or dispose now.
But Steph Flanders' piece might give many food for thought on the economic implications of whatever happens in the next month or two. I've not seen this brought up anywhere else, and it's rather chilling when you think about it.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mark, I think you should learn a quintessential American phrase
(f you haven't learnt it yet):
WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM?!
Since US government ( like any other government)has no money of it own it' will have to be obtained the old-fashioned Democrats' way : by RAISING TAXES.
The last thing this country needs, particularly in the current economy.
By the way... High health insurance costs will never go down without a meaningful TORT reform. But we haven't heard a peep about it, and I suspect we never shall, because Mr. Obama is a rich laywer, just like most US legislators.
And it is lawyers (and their mighty PAC) who contributed most to Mr. Obama's election campaign and contribute most to Democratic Party's coffers.
P.S. Medicare and Medicaid, two-government run health scheme has put us (US) 30 TRILLION dollars in the red in just over 40 years.
Which is a harbinger of the things to come.
And Social Security system is almost completely broke, but you may just forget about any prospects of saving it though at least partial privatisation (which G.W. Bush proposed) by the current Administration and US Congress.
Complain about this comment
junglejim123: Thank you for post 18. Such a detailed list deserves a detailed response, so I downloaded the House bill to see what the thousand-plus pages looked like. To my surprise, the type was mostly large, with most pages having a maximum of 25 lines per page, so it wasn't as bad as it might have been.
Of course, this House bill will not necessarily become law - there's still some sausage-making to be done with the Senate, of course - but it's worth reviewing, nonetheless. So, here goes:
Well, now I have an idea as to what the folks who read the Lisbon Treaty went through... ;*)
Complain about this comment
It seems to me that Mark Mardell is not independent/even handed in his views. The BBC never gone over Obama winning the presidency; it is very sad. I still remember the BBC comments after declaring the election results "...he got the car mirror but does not know what to do with it ..."
I am glad that not every politician is corrupt and dishonest all the times.
Complain about this comment
"WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM?!
Since US government ( like any other government)has no money of it own it' will have to be obtained the old-fashioned Democrats' way : by RAISING TAXES."
Typical Republican/tory view. We are OK as the "haves". Screw the "have nots".
Well, the have nots can not afford health care in the US, not because they are poor. But more because of the colusion between Republican senators and the medical insurance companies, and big business, to quite simply keep medical insurance prices at around 200% of any other country on the planet.
Big business, with the help of Republican governments, has long screwed the American people on health care.
The people who can afford it pay way too much for the service they get. And a lot of middle class people are simply priced out of the market.
Please stop patronising people with scare mongering about tax raises. The only reason Republican senators is trying to block it as it would destroy a very lucrative industry.
It's all corrupt. A lot of Senators, with a lot of big business backers to please.
The Republicans, as usual, fight reform, by quite simply leaking lies into the media to scare Americans into accepting the status quo
The industry of ripping off Americans.
Complain about this comment
KScurmudgeon wrote:
"You see the irrationality of a great democracy being distracted from serious business by foolish frippery and out-and-out lies. The press's duty should be laughing these baseless arguments off the stage, as should all sensible adults both in and out of government.
But our press, like yours, has degenerated into packs of roving jackals, always looking for a fresh carcass to tear, or for a momentary weakness to recast into a (hopefully) fatal slip in time to whet the 6:00 news. "
I don't know that this is a useful way of characterizing the press. I agree that most journalists post vacuous and unimportant falsehoods, but I strongly disagree that there is some kind of "duty" that journalists are supposed to uphold. I think it is a very dangerous game to start talking about "duty" to the community, or the country, or whatever. Once you start suggesting that certain professions have a special "duty", the next step is for those professions to demand special powers, and government funding.
You also run the very real risk, by making some professions exalted, of attracting the worst sort of people to that profession. Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel for a good reason: scoundrels need refuge, and most clubs reject them. They need somewhere to hide their lack of decency and good character. A uniform, a priests habit and a flag are traditionally excellent ways to dress a thief and a liar, if the object is to hide the nature of the individual. I don't think it is useful to add journalists to that list.
There are some professions where a moral "duty" is something to be desired, and where it is thus required by law. Teachers ought owe a duty not to molest children in their care. Doctors ought to owe a duty to patients, not to steal their watches or experiment on them for fun. And lawyers really should owe a duty to tell the truth to the court, or the court has a very hard time functioning properly, and justice becomes a hideous farce, a mere commercial exercise. I say "ought to" and "should", because I am a lawyer, and I am keenly aware that most lawyers and doctors are despicable people, and operate without a duty to anyone but themselves, despite all the pretense otherwise. Teachers generally leave children well enough alone, in my experience. I think they are the least corrupted of the fiduciary professions.
But journalists, like soldiers, are simply paid to do a difficult job. It is a very dangerous business to ascribe a duty to journalists and soldiers, because the former is paid to entertain, and the later to kill people. If you start asking journalists to speak the truth, you end up having to appoint sacred people to adjudicate the pure truth, and thus you destroy freedom of speech and thought. Likewise, if soldiers are expected to make moral judgements about who they are supposed to kill, then you destroy the chain of command in a military organization and, worse, you create a class of warrior monks who see killing the right sort of people as a moral achievement. And then, to satisfy the understandable urge of achieving moral worth in the eyes of their peers, you end up with warrior monks stretching the definition of the right sort of people to kill, so they can keep at it.
No, I think that if we wish to get the best from our journalists and soldiers, we must create systems of political control within the society, and leave the moral duty to one side. We need journalists who will entertain and promote free speech, and we need soldiers who will follow orders and refrain from killing people unless they are paid to do so by the state.
So if we have a press who are entertaining us with entirely useless information, and we want change, I think we need to address our political economy. I don't think the answer is to plead with journalists to become exalted individuals. That path leads to journalists getting confused, and feeling contempt for the rest of the community. Just so, if we have military men who are going into business for themselves as mercenaries, we need to change the political economy of the state to remove the killing of folks from the realm of private enterprise, and restrict it to state employment contracts.
With reference to the media, I think it is pretty clear to most thinking people that the reason we have drivel and emotional titillation served up at every meal is simply because media owners cannot afford to offend advertisers. Therefore, neither can journalists. Political parties and the businesses that fund them are the biggest advertisers in society, and so it ought come as no big surprise that political parties and businesses which fund them tend not to be criticized in the press. I don't think this can be called moral corruption, it is just the business of the media according to the political economy of the society. If you want to find moral corruption, look at the judiciary, and the activism in that sphere to alter the political economy towards morally reprehensible models of law. And, I suppose, one can look towards legislators for the moral duty to create a political economy that creates good journalism, and friendly, humane soldiers.
In short, if we wish to see positive changes in society then I think it is the senior judges and the constitutional legislators we need to turn to, and who we must judge very strictly, and according to the most profound philosophical principles. Unfortunately we do not tend to think about constitutional law makers, and this class of person is neatly hidden away from public scrutiny, oftentimes by themselves. Western democracies have static constitutions, more or less, and a very, very restricted practical process is available for creating change in the constitutional structure.
I remain convinced that unless the suffrage for constitutional change is removed from the banking class, and placed into the hands of the electorate via the process of direct participation in the legislative process, we shall never really witness a change in the way the political economy operates.
And that might very well be a good thing. It is a tricky business, changing a political economy. If the rule of law breaks down during the changeover, rank popularism such as marxism can arise, causing class war and untold misery. But all the same, my personal preference is to trust in progress and have a go at making the future a better place.
What is the quote from Obama?
"We did not come here to fear the future. We came here to shape it."
Nice words, and he is a constitutional lawyer. Such a pity he is owned by the bankers.
Complain about this comment
President Obama delivered an excellent speech, well crafted, clear, and inspiring. It is obvious that he is trying to move Congressional Democrats to the center to address the concerns of the right wing of the Republican party and many Americans, it is also obvious that he has concluded that without compromise meaningful reform is unlikely.
I believe he was a bit too stern in the language he used when he addressed the distortions and exaggerations that have dominated the debate in recent weeks, but he was also gracious in acknowledging Sen/ McCain's vision and addressing tort reform.
The clarifications he offered on issues such as MEDICARE and funding were excellent and timely, but I doubt they will persuade those who reach conclusions based strictly on ideology, political bias, personal benefit,and greed rather than what is best for our society and our country.
President Obama should have delivered this speech 3 months ago, instead of waiting until the insurance companies and their supporters had all the momentum. Now he is playing catch up.
Complain about this comment
Re#46 Please stop patronising people with scare mongering about tax raises.
Hardly a scare. More like a given. I can't remember a single Democratic Administration which has not raised taxes.
Take it from somebody who helped elect Bill 'Cigar' Clinton by dividing Republican vote by opting for Ross Perot just because I couldn't force myself to reelect G.H.W. Bush (the senior), after he said "read my lips, no new taxes" and then raised them.
Again, I may even support Mr. Obama's health insurance plan when I see one. So far, however, there are no specifics emerging from his White House and leaks change almost weekly depending on what his pollsters tell him about public reaction to its previous leaks.
P.S. I'm sure that the current plan (whatever it is) is going to be modified again depending on public reaction to his Wednesday speech.
Complain about this comment
What shocks me about this debate is how badly informed most people are on the details. Its almost as if the Republicans know that John Citizen won't read the bill in all its details, leaving them open to sow doubt and misinformation. Just look at the posts above where people are quoting from the bill and how the facts are completely misinterpreted simply to fit someones viewpoint.
This is no longer a fight about health care and doing what's right for society, but simply a hatchet job by conservatives who are not interested in what's good for America - only what keeps them in power and destroys anyone who does not share their beliefs. Shame on you and god help us because with people like you, we dont need enemies.
Complain about this comment
The devil is in the details. Elderly Americans are connecting the dots in ways that they find threatening. For example, IMAC and its affect on Medicare.
Instead of brushing off their concerns and latching on to the "death panel" statement from Palin, Obama would be better served by dealing with the very valid fear that having a medical panel involved in cost cutting will result in a reduction of services. Additionally, Obama should refrain from talking about the excessive costs at end of life. Between Obama's words and the IMAC, one can begin to see why seniors are worried.
Complain about this comment
ref #32 WhitewaterOregon wrote:
copperDolomite wrote: Obama is right. This is about character. I'm glad he looked angry. He should be. The American character has not distinguished itself this summer.
I was glad of his stern speech too, Copper. But don't judge us all by the radio loons and town hall screamers. Thousands of us have been quietly organizing for months, explaining the public plan option and the need for reform, while growing the REAL grassroots effort to pass this necessary legislation. The Astro-Turf disruptions ginned up by the insurance industry and their Republican operatives don't begin to compare. The majority of Americans see through the R's scare talk and desperation tactics. The people want facts. And the facts are all on our side. Don't count us out!
You are right the contempt shown by certain representatives to the public. The strong arm tatics by SEIU and Acorn again distorting facts and giving instruction on intimidating opponents.
Complain about this comment
It seems that those Americans that talk about health care rationing, are unaware that their health care is already rationed. Those of us who have health insurance provided by the companies we work for must see doctors the insurance company will approve. Any pre-existing condition is not covered, regardless of how minor or major that condition is. If you become too expensive for your health insurance, you are dropped,which will limit or cancel any treatment you may be receiving. The major problem with America's health care is that it is profit driven. In order to make a profit, you must take in as much money as possible and spend the least money as possible. The liars in all this is those who want the status quo, they aren't interested in the health of this country, their interest is profit!
Complain about this comment
Ref 51, Andrea
"Obama would be better served by dealing with the very valid fear that having a medical panel involved in cost cutting will result in a reduction of services."
I was under the impression that you are a conservative Republican.
Do you actually object to the elimination of wasteful spending and subsidies to pharmaceuticals and insurance companies?
IMO, any initiative that curtails waste - without jeopardizing the effectiveness of MEDICARE and MEDICAID - is a welcome change. Obviously, there are a lot of questions still begging for clarification, but we are moving in the right direction.
Hopefully the next step is to curtail unlimited funding of the military and tax breaks for the wealthy. Why do we need B2s, missile cruisers, and drones to fight Muslims firing their AK47s from the beds of pickup trucks?
Complain about this comment
Your comments are quite accurate. My own guess is that he made some form of health care reform more likely. Most Republicans either want it or would grudgingly accept it if the cost can be contained.
Perhaps the key is whether liberal Democrats still absolutely demand the public option and would not vote for a health care plan without it. After all, if the Democrats were totally united, they wouldn't need the Republicans or at least not more than one or two which they're likely to get anyway.
I thought Obama was being a bit disingenuous when he said his plan wouldn't "require" people to give up their current insurance. But, what if their employers decide to switch to a cheaper public option or to a difference plan through a co-op or "marketplace"?
Wouldn't new taxes on drug companies, medical equipment makers and insurance firms cause them to raise their prices? Can enough huge savings really be obtained from Medicare and Medicaid to cover the cost of including the uninsured?
If spending cuts should be necessary because medical costs are too high, who will decide what to cut and by how much?
Yet, a deal, a basic deal, is possible if the politicians are realistic and sensible and stop playing political games - which is asking a lot.
Complain about this comment
As someone who paid for much of my father's medical care when he became terminally ill, lost his job, and became uninsured, I recognize and appreciate the need for some type of health care reform.
After being laid off, I became self-employed and was attempting to obtain private insurance. I can tell you that while an insurer would accept me, the monthly rate was almost half my monthly income (which wasn't inconsequential). It would not have covered anything related to something for which I had previously received treatment. I was fortunate that I was able to obtain a full time position for the group insurance, where, after a year, pre-existing conditions are covered.
As caregiver for my elderly mother, I see the difficulties brought about by Medicare Part D (prescription coverage). The plethora of plans, while at first glance seem to provide wonderful options, do nothing but provide yearly exceptional confusion. Additionally, much thought went into making this a money maker for insurance companies. The most ridiculous provision is that you must make your choice each year and cannot change your choice until the next year, but the insurance you decide upon can look radically different the day after it is too late to change. For example, you are encouraged to select a plan that covers your medications (has anyone actually tried to wade through this information). A reasonable thing certainly. So you make your selection. At any time though, the insurance companies can, and do, drop coverage for medications. I have to say, for the most part, if the doctor makes a case for the newly dropped medication, it is usually covered. However, this requires the elderly to understand the government doublespeak notifications and have the ability to communicate clearly what they need to their doctors office. Both things which often challenge the elderly. Let's not forget the "doughnut hole". The gap in coverage which comes after the program has paid a certain amount, about 4 months into the year for many seniors. When they reach this stage many go without medications because they cannot afford to pay 100% of the prescription cost until they get to the other side of the gap (or, in this case chasm).
So, is some type of reform needed? Most certainly. Is the federal government best suited to be the gate keeper? I suspect not. Do I have any "better" suggestions? Unfortunately no. What I do know is that this silly hysterical screaming and misinformation that surrounds this issue is counter productive. If they could settle down it might just be they have a good idea hidden between the rants. But nobody will hear if for dodging their spittle as they spout near insanity.
Complain about this comment
Facts on the President's speech:
http://crosssection.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/show-me-the-money/
Complain about this comment
Ref 26, pub:
"Your angle of approach is too shallow."
* rotflmao *
That's probably the funniest thing I've ever read on this board.
Complain about this comment
"#12 Scott-
You missed out in his explanation to pay for it all- the fact that if he's wrong there is a contingency plan.
One of the boldest things I thought was that he said that if expected savings did not materialise- then he would have to cut spending, because he would write it into the bill."
No, I didn't miss it. That's another one of the things I didn't find credible. A Democratic Congress cut spending? Their obvious target would be the military and Obama has already given the military budget a hard going over. Further cuts would likely have to be spread across the board and would be hugely unpopular with a wide range of constituencies: can Congress take that kind of heat? I have my doubts.
Complain about this comment
KScurmudgeon (#36) "Those of you in the US, is there any regional or social group that believes the government will do things right?"
Sometimes the government does things right. The FDIC is a good example.
Complain about this comment
"This is no longer a fight about health care and doing what's right for society, but simply a hatchet job by conservatives who are not interested in what's good for America - only what keeps them in power and destroys anyone who does not share their beliefs."
In case you hadn't noticed the conservatives aren't in power at the moment and if you want to talk about people out to destroy the oppostion you should look at the liberal left as well as the conservative right.
Personally I'm glad they're speaking up. Obama could have made this speech three months ago, instead he counted on his party's majority to ram his reform measures through Congress without debate and got a lesson in political reality--that it is the people, not the Congress, who must ultimately approve and accept his reform plan. By trying to force a quick vote without time for debate he set himself and his party up to claims that they were trying to pull a fast one on the American people, the conservatives merely pointed it out and the instinctive American distrust of government did the rest. By forcing Obama to work with both sides we'll probably get a better plan as a result.
Complain about this comment
Posting a link to a blog on several threads doesn't make it any more authoritative. It's still only someone's blog.
Complain about this comment
I'm another US Brit and Obama's speech was hollow as usual!! There was no information and his bipartisan olive branch was weak: " He'll consider "tort reform", what does that mean?? There have been over '800' Republican amendments to shape reform and all have been shot down by the Democrats! FYI, how can you trust someone on their figures when their own deficit estimates are wrong by $2 Trillion?? If Obama knows how to fix wasteful spending then why isn't he doing it right now, why wait?? Because his statement is bull!! And re: access for Illegal aliens, its the Democrats that have fought legislation that would require people to prove citizenship in order to receive care. Obama claims illegals won't have access and yet from his own mouth he claims its our moral duty to treat "everyone" including illegals! You can't have it both ways. Obama makes Gordon Brown look like a genius!!
Complain about this comment
47. At 10:41am on 10 Sep 2009, democracythreat wrote:
"But I don't know that this is a useful way of characterizing the press. I agree that most journalists post vacuous and unimportant falsehoods, but I strongly disagree that there is some kind of "duty" that journalists are supposed to uphold. I think it is a very dangerous game to start talking about "duty" to the community, or the country, or whatever. Once you start suggesting that certain professions have a special "duty", the next step is for those professions to demand special powers, and government funding. ..."
Thank you for an insightful and thought-provoking response. Here in the states, I don't find that duty is owed only to the state, or to the crown. Civic duty is owed to the community, whether it is to tell the truth when people look to you for information, e.g. "How do I get to Islington?", or to keep your grass mowed so it doesn't become an eyesore or even a hazard.
Especially when your position is that of a source of information, whether as a teacher, an answering service, or a newscaster, it is your plain obligation to identify when the information you are sharing is credible or is not credible, when you are communicating actionable facts and when you are telling jokes for amusement. The source of a purported fact should be indicated, particularly if it is your own experience, opinion, or observation, as should the source of a joke, particularly if it is not your own.
You are a lawyer, and lawyers have their own system of grading the credibility of a bit of information; I was trained to history, and know how to identify a primary source, secondary, tertiary, etc. Engineers and scientists rely on communicating the evidence for a proposition, the methodology, and often a statistical study of the frequency of occurrence, and so forth.
Until a few years ago, something like this was part of news coverage in the media. Commentary was clearly separated from reporting 'factual news'. Whether they were present or not,'personal opinions' were rarely given (as opposed to professional opinion - the result of a professional analysis), and both were plainly identified as such.
These days 'authoritative' talking heads, who may be the journalists you refer to, rant on without any specific reference to evidence or the factual quality of the content. It took some years for us to understand that Rush Limbaugh was merely an entertainer, who chose to use political and social issues as his material and who chose to work from a radical conservative perspective.
I still feel it is the civic duty of those who purport to broadcast factual information to also investigate and declare the reasonable reliability of the information they present to the public.
Now you know how old I really am.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
" The devils in the details"
well what poppycock.
How do you propose to have details before an outline?
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat says "By the way... High health insurance costs will never go down without a meaningful TORT reform. But we haven't heard a peep about it, and I suspect we never shall, because Mr. Obama is a rich laywer, just like most US legislators."
But tort reform is only 10% of the waste. Why be penny-wise but pound foolish? It's still a good idea to consider how to keep tithing 10% to the legal profession, but it's not going to put a dent in the real problem. If the government OPTION is so expensive, then the private companies should have no problem out-competing it and away it will go; but every one secretly knows that that will not happen, which is why the lawyers and free market are trying to make that OPTION go away.
Complain about this comment
BCATL99 says: "There have been over '800' Republican amendments to shape reform and all have been shot down by the Democrats!"
The reason why is that these amendments take away the rights of patients to due process. Sometimes doctors and lawyers and insurers, even good ones, make serious mistakes. They should be responsible to pay the damages they cause and expenses that they generate for the individual whose life they've taken or ruined.
Do you really think all those Republican lawyers are making _reasonable_ offers to the Democrats that would result in the decrease of the business of the law firms they will likely go back to after their service as congressmen? 800 straw men sent up, nothing more.
Complain about this comment
I'm so disappointed by President Obama's speech last night. I believe he missed a great opportunity to reach across the political divide in our country, and offer some additional solutions to keeping our healthcare costs down. These include legitimate tort reform, making individual healthcare plans available across state lines, making individual healthcare premiums tax deductible (as is the case for companies today) and ensuring that we are not locked in to a government organized system that will prevent flexibility over time.
I will not be able to support President Obama as he moves ahead...I dont think he was genuine in his promises to not add to the deficit...it was just not credible to believe we can add coverage for 46 million americans with no net new cost.
Thanks for reading,
Complain about this comment
66. At 04:15am on 11 Sep 2009, adeptblue wrote:
... 'If the government OPTION is so expensive, then the private companies should have no problem out-competing it and away it will go;'...
I correct you: If the government OPTION is so inept, then the private companies should have no problem out-competing it and away it will go;...
This is how inserting a government-run option will lower costs and improve services in the private sector.
your servant,
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
When they say "Those who have health care won't have to change what they have..." They mean, until your either lose your job (and thus your health insurance unless you want to foot the large expense via the COBRA laws), or until the plan you are on goes bust and you are forced to choose from the shrinking pool of more expensive private options.
Either way, you would then be comparing an option that is offered by corporations attempting to earn a profit, to one that the government supplies where they can run red ink for decades. It is clear that this bill will kill private health insurance and drive people to a single payer government controlled health care system. That was the plan from the beginning.
Complain about this comment
70. At 05:25am on 11 Sep 2009, Dakota_Erik wrote:
'When they say "Those who have health care won't have to change what they have..." They mean, until your either lose your job (and thus your health insurance unless you want to foot the large expense via the COBRA laws), or until the plan you are on goes bust and you are forced to choose from the shrinking pool of more expensive private options.
Either way, you would then be comparing an option that is offered by corporations attempting to earn a profit, to one that the government supplies where they can run red ink for decades.'
Is cost the only comparison that matters? Should it be the only way they will compete, the only thing they need to offer?
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
Mark will you be paying the £3,000 plus for the damages in the home you left in your last rented home?
Why should we pay for damages done by you?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS