MANDATORY health insurance

[Irvine511]

are you implying that Obama called Sarah Palin a pig?

 

[martha]

I saw this back in July.

 

[maycocksean]

Anybody else watching the speech?

 

[maycocksean]

Guess not. . .

One thing I don't really understand is the health exchange.

The boos by the Republicans on the issue of illegal immigrants? WTF? Some guys carrying a sign of some sort. .. it all seems so shamelessly politically motivated.

Sad.

 

[maycocksean]

One thing I cannot believe and will not believe that reform won't add to the deficit though.

 

[maycocksean]

What bothers me is the sense I get that many Republican lawmakers, for political reasons, won't work with Obama no matter what he says, because they feel it will cost them votes. It's the very opposite of what this country needs and the very opposite of constructive governance.

 

[BonosSaint]

OK, that was a good speech. He hit the areas I wanted to see hit and the way I wanted to see them hit. Still a little sparse on the details and I want to know the details, and like Sean, I'm pretty sure that it's going to add to the deficit. This issue might be worth it, though. Yeah, I was pleased with the speech. Wasn't sure I was going to be.

The Republican response was pretty sad.

 

[trojanchick99]

I only got to listen to the speech as I was on my way home. It was great, as per usual. I clapped a few times.

The Republican response was pretty sad.

The Republican response is always sad. At least he didn't bring up volcanoes.

ETA: Rep Joe Wilson from SC is an ass. He's the one who yelled "You lie" when Obama said that illegals wouldn't be covered. Show some respect.

 

[maycocksean]

OK, that was a good speech. He hit the areas I wanted to see hit and the way I wanted to see them hit. Still a little sparse on the details and I want to know the details, and like Sean, I'm pretty sure that it's going to add to the deficit. This issue might be worth it, though. Yeah, I was pleased with the speech. Wasn't sure I was going to be.

The Republican response was pretty sad.

The sense I get is that Obama is flexible on the details. There are certain things he wants to see accomplished and he's willing to get there any number of ways. His reasonable approach makes the more wild-eyed Republican oppostion seem postively cartoonish. (It also means there are going to be some people on the left who are going to feel burned by him).

There were several shameful moments. . .the boos, the lawmakers toting signs like any nutcase protester at a townhall meeting, the ones waving copies of the bill I assume. But I guess these guys have to pander to their constituents who are drinking the Rush kool-aid. (You have to wonder if all these fans of the Rush, Coulter, Hannity, Beck, have ever stopped to consider that these people being anything other than opposed to Obama is against their financial self-interest. Opposition to him is their business plan, which should make anyone listening to them be skeptical of their reliability).

 

[BonosSaint]

It wasn't the speech for details anyway, and I agree he is being flexible so there aren't enough details to flesh out yet. I guess I meant I'd reserve final judgment for the bill he signs. But I like the direction. A little bit of compromise, but much stronger on the issue than he's shown in public prior to this. He stepped in because he needed to step in and he did it well.

I'm just one of those tedious people who reads the fine print And reads the factcheck the next day.

 

[INDY500]

If it was indeed a congressman who shouted 'you lie," they should apologize tomorrow. A gross breach of decorum.

However, I remain skeptical on the issue for many reasons:
1) the experience in California with prop 187
2) the figure 45 million, use 30 million if counting only citizens (which I think the president actually did tonight).
3) put language in the bill authorizing verification methods. Something other than, "Are you an American citizen?" "Si."
4) how about one of those triggers voiding the entire bill if illegals do begin to get coverage. Should be no problem if the president is being forthright.

I actually liked much of the speech detailing consumer protections but details, details. Define "affordable." Define "basic coverage" that all American's will be required to purchase. What is the out-of-pocket cap that protects families from bankruptcy? I'm glad the president recognizes the problem, but I'm wary of a Congress (with their eyes on the prize of a single-payer system) piling on the restrictions too thick, driving out insurance companies, lessening industry competition thus laying the groundwork for The Public Option to ride into town on a white horse and save the day.

One last thing on decorum. I watched the Republican response on MSNBC and did anyone else catch the first words out of K Olbermann's mouth when he was done? Mentioned the guy's been sued for malpractice 3 times and called him a birther. Class act Keith. The congressman deserves no less respect than the president.

 

[Irvine511]

generally, it was superb. details, yes, there need to be more, but what was clarion was the moral purpose. how any self-described "Christian" views the sick as impositions on their bank accounts absolutely baffles me. yes, we all want *effective* health insurance and we can debate how to get there, but the response that the status quo, which leaves 40m uninsured at any given point and where the #1 cause of bankruptcy in this country is medical costs, is somehow either acceptable or actually preferable to reform is simply shocking. we have an obligation to ourselves to care for the sick, lest we become one of the sick and need the care of others.

the first words out of K Olbermann's mouth when he was done? Mentioned he's been sued for malpractice 3 times and called him a birther. Class act Keith

it's also true.



and way to keep it classy, GOP.

 

[trojanchick99]

BTW, Wilson has already apologized. Gotta love the 24 hour news cycle.

As for Keith Olbermann, the lack of respect shown to politicians has sadly been rampant amongst the "pundits" on both sides. It doesn't make it right, but that's what's been happening for years now.

 

[INDY500]

Nice also to see the president mention malpractice and tort reform, giving Republicans a chance to stretch their legs. But make it part of the bill Mr President, not a project that can be blocked yearly by Democratic majorities for as long as they enjoy that distinction.

 

[anitram]

I was busy working tonight (go free market!!) so I didn't get to see more than highlights.

What's with the GOP waving signs or whatever? Are they 10 years old? The guy yelling out was just a disgrace. I'm actually sort of glad that they behaved like this, it really says a lot.

I'll try to see the thing in its entirety as I have it on my PVR.

 

[Irvine511]

i liked this part:

Part of the reason I faced a trillion dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for – from the Iraq War to tax breaks for the wealthy. I will not make that same mistake with health care.

 

[INDY500]

If Democrats are going to continue to use the example of Alabama having 85% of all it's policies with just one insurance company to illustrate the lack of competition (as Obama did in his speech tonight); can one person tell me why the Democrats will not support allowing Alabamians to buy insurance from private insurers in another state (which everyone is now restricted from doing) rather then set up this public option as the only recourse. Miss Alabama can insure her legs with Lloyd's of London but she can't buy more affordable health insurance from Georgia? Why, why is this status quo so sacred?

Anyone?

 

[INDY500]

i liked this part:

The partisan digs were the low point if you ask me. I thought we were tying to get beyond such things and "work together for the American people."

 

[anitram]

The partisan digs were the low point if you ask me.

Yeah, way worse than some lunatic screaming during a joint session of Congress.

 

[powerhour24]

This isn't aimed at anyone who's posting in this thread, just a general attitude.

Honestly its only those who gain 'strength' in their life from amassing lots of money that could genuinely oppose extending human rights to all, that includes proper education and healthcare. You're born into a lottery, for the most part those who have a lot have had advantages all their lives, but what % chance makes you different from the kid that didn't get any chances? So why are you so high and mighty to not be willing to take even the slightest hit for the benefit of others? Its not to say we shouldn't live in a capitalistic society, people make progress by working for themselves, but we can't be made better by doing things solely for ourselves. It isn't socialist to try and extend decency of life to people, and it isn't business-crushing to have a non-profit option for the 10's of millions who don't have access to health-care otherwise.

It is one thing to oppose the details of a bill(s), and believe me I'm not foolishly agreeing with all of them, but its another to do so simply because you have an ulterior selfish attitude.

My point is that Obama's motivations are sound, even if they way we're aiming to get there isn't just yet. Is there really anyone out there who believes he wants to create a socialist state with willy-nilly abortions and a touchy-feely love fest haven for terrorists? I hope not, I assume that's the scare-tactic angle of the moment, but it would terrify me if those spouting it actually thought that instead of using it as angle to save their pockets a hit.

That's my attitude, I don't rally behind all of his policies, I won't be sheep-herded into the details of all bills that get to the ideals I agree with, but I'm advocating we all work together honestly and with our motivations out on our sleeves. Its my great disappointment in how strong political in-fighting has become that to reach any position of power, even those who advocate bipartisan efforts (like Obama seemingly was a few years) have to tip completely to one side. But as a moderate independent, politics will be even more bafflingly painful to watch for me, as the same pigheadedness takes different forms over and over again.

/rant over.

 

[Tiger Edge]

^Excellent post. I feel precisely the same way.

The discussions in the medical office I work at tomorrow will be lengthy.

 

[INDY500]

Yeah, way worse than some lunatic screaming during a joint session of Congress.

Maybe he should have thrown a shoe as I seem to remember Democrats rather enjoyed seeing a president of the United States dodge leather projectiles thrown by a dissenting member of the audience.

 

[anitram]

Maybe he should have thrown a shoe as I seem to remember Democrats rather enjoyed seeing a president of the United States dodge a leather projectile thrown by a dissenting member of the audience.

Did a Democratic member of Congress do that?

Way to falsely equivocate. Really lame, honestly.

 

[indra]

Maybe he should have thrown a shoe as I seem to remember Democrats rather enjoyed seeing a president of the United States dodge leather projectiles thrown by a dissenting member of the audience.

He probably just couldn't get them off quickly enough.

 

[VintagePunk]

One last thing on decorum. I watched the Republican response on MSNBC and did anyone else catch the first words out of K Olbermann's mouth when he was done? Mentioned the guy's been sued for malpractice 3 times and called him a birther. Class act Keith. The congressman deserves no less respect than the president.

There really are much more important things to focus on this evening, but since I spent most of the day with my mother, who was receiving top rate and timely health care at one of our best (socialized) health care facilities in the area, I'm sleepy tonight and not really fit for in depth policy discussions. So for now, I'd just like to say that given that Obama has been raked over the coals ad nauseum, and we are all well aware of every detail of his background, why should the background of the Republican speaker be off limits? Knowing the background of the speaker can help one understand how their thoughts and opinions were formed, and these points were particularly illuminating. I say this as someone who can't stomach Olbermann, but I did hear the same things from a different news source.

I think the Republican heckler did display an appalling lack of decorum, but he was in a professional situation. Olbermann and other media members cannot be held to the same standard in this case, their jobs are to report relevant information, and I do believe this information was relevant to understanding possible motivations of the congressman.

 

[martha]

So, if an "illegal" (and really, are people somehow "illegal"?) needs medical care, we let him die on the street? I'd like a real answer from someone, please. Anyone.

 

[BVS]

If Democrats are going to continue to use the example of Alabama having 85% of all it's policies with just one insurance company to illustrate the lack of competition (as Obama did in his speech tonight); can one person tell me why the Democrats will not support allowing Alabamians to buy insurance from private insurers in another state (which everyone is now restricted from doing) rather then set up this public option as the only recourse. Miss Alabama can insure her legs with Lloyd's of London but she can't buy more affordable health insurance from Georgia? Why, why is this status quo so sacred?

Anyone?

This is partly a farse, and partly misunderstood.

I have BCBS Illinois, but live in TX, due to my employer's corporate office in Illinois.

In some aspects my plan is much better than most of those living in TX, but in other ways it's very limited compared to a plan I would purchase in TX.

The not being able to buy from state to state is mainly set up by the insurance companies themselves. Go "free market"!

Why? Take podiatry for example: podiatry in TX is defined by any procedure from the forefoot to an inch above the ankle, Georgia is up to right under the knee, and Ohio is just the forefoot the ankle isn't included. (now these may not be exact by state) But the point being is that regulations differ from state to state so in order for the insurance companies not to be screwed they worked collectively and compromised on regulations not allowing some policies to be sold state to state.

 

[No spoken words]

Maybe he should have thrown a shoe as I seem to remember Democrats rather enjoyed seeing a president of the United States dodge leather projectiles thrown by a dissenting member of the audience.

Really? Wow.

 

[indra]

Really? Wow.

Of course, what Indy didn't mention is that the shoe was thrown by an Iraqi journalist in Iraq, not by a member of the US Congress. I realise that's just a minor detail....

link

 

[No spoken words]

Of course, what Indy didn't mention is that the shoe was thrown by an Iraqi journalist in Iraq, not by a member of the US Congress. I realise that's just a minor detail....

link

My "Really? Wow." was incredulity that he used this as an example of......well, of anything, really. I know that the right have lost their minds, but come on, a child could do better than this.