The Obama Health Care Speech: One Republican’s View
By HHR | September 10th, 2009 | Category: Featured | 15 commentsby Dennis Sanders
I heard most the President’s speech tonight over the radio. Here are some of what I thought were highlights and what I thought.
What this plan will do is to make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies – because there’s no reason we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.
I don’t have a problem with this provision. I’ve long believed that denying someone insurance because of pre-existing conditions, or using the horrible practice of recission should be against the law.
Now, if you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans who don’t currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange – a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It’s how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it’s time to give every American the same opportunity that we’ve given ourselves.
For those individuals and small businesses who still cannot afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we will provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need. And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned. This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right. In the meantime, for those Americans who can’t get insurance today because they have pre-existing medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill. This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign, it’s a good idea now, and we should embrace it.
He makes a nod to the co-op idea and to the idea that market forces should bring prices down. He includes subsidies for those who can’t purchase health care and seems to back a catastrophic insurance scheme that was devised by his 2008 opponent, John McCain. Smart move there. All in all, there are things for someone like me to love.
Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. The insurance reforms that I’ve already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear – it would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up.
Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don’t like this idea. They argue that these private companies can’t fairly compete with the government. And they’d be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won’t be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers. It would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.
Hmmm…this I don’t get. If we have consumer protections and regulation (good), and we have companies competing and bringing down prices (also good), and we have subsidies to help those who can’t afford the premiums (really good), then why do we need a “public option?” It just seems like the answer to a question no one is asking.
That said, I do like that he is looking to make it be funded not by taxes, but by premiums.
Finally, let me discuss an issue that is a great concern to me, to members of this chamber, and to the public – and that is how we pay for this plan.
Here’s what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I’m serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don’t materialize. 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.
Second, we’ve estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system – a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care doesn’t make us healthier. That’s not my judgment – it’s the judgment of medical professionals across this country. And this is also true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid.
Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. Much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers. This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money – an idea which has the support of Democratic and Republican experts. And according to these same experts, this modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long-run.
Another hmmm moment. Other than the tax on so-called “Cadillac” plans, I don’t see how tackling the old monster of “waste, fraud and abuse” is going to not make this plan a budget buster.
As for his partisan dig at Republicans for leaving a big deficit? Well, it was partisan, but it was also true. Moving on…
Finally, many in this chamber – particularly on the Republican side of the aisle – have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the cost of health care. I don’t believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. So I am proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know that the Bush Administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these issues. It’s a good idea, and I am directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today.
I think this is a worthwhile idea and it throws something to the GOP. Will the Republicans take it? I don’t know.
All in all, it was a good speech and he did put some more flesh on the bones of his plan. My problems with it is that he still has not really given a reasonable explaination as to why we need a public option and has not really tackled how to best pay for this plan in a way that won’t bust the already busted budget. He also has not taken on the idea of junking the idea of employer-provided insurance, something that doesn’t work in this age of employment mobility. My guess is that killing employer provided care would mean taking on labor, one the building blocks of the Democratic coalition.
The question remains if he can get Democrats to agree on this, and if Republicans are willing to step up and work on the plan.
I’ve said it before, but I think we need health care reform. The question remains if Obama’s plan is a plan that will work.
Dennis Sanders is a pastor living in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He has worked on centrist Republican issues for years, including stints as President of the Minnesota chapter of Log Cabin Republicans (a gay/lesbian advocacy group) and Republicans for Environmental Protection. Dennis blogs at NeoMugwump and happily lives with his partner Daniel and serves two cats, Morris and Felix.
on 
on 
It’s a plan pitched for moderate Republicans. The question is, are the Republicans willing to reach a middle ground?
no, No, NO are the democrats willing to reach a middle ground!!!!!!!
The time for bipartison biachin is over and then you go full retard on bipartinsonship please who the fuc* are you trying to fooooool……. I’ll giv eit to the pres. he only blamed GWB once I had teh under/ over at 6.5
So accepting over 80 amendments by the Republicans (compared to 30 from own Democrats) means that the Democrats are unwilling to reach a middle ground? I’d love to see how you reach that logic, SBM.
Republicans bring an important mindset to the table. Most Democrats might overlook many details that a Republican might not. On a reform as big as health care, you want more, diverse people providing useful feedback, including that of a Republican.
How could he or the Democrats accept anything if it isn’t complete yet? And remember amendments are things that are added to the original.. The problem is the original. I can not get pas the fact that he says ” no abortion funding” but Dems will not put ” no Abortion funding” in the bill. or No Illegal’s but there is no way of checking if your are illegal. Kinda doesn’t make sense and after that I think to my self what else are they hiding?
SBM, let’s start with the last idiocy you said. How do you identify an illegal immigrant? Is it being an Hispanic? Is it the strong, strange accent when they speak English? Or is it that they don’t have “Green Cards”?
Second, the only medical treatment that illegal immigrants currently get, and will continue to get under any bill, is ER treatment. Under the law, it’s illegal to deny emergency treatment to anyone due to insurance or immigration status. It’s logical, since verifying either status can be time consuming and requires some documentation, increasing the chances of death or permanent damage to law abiding citizens.
The HR3200, the most discussed bill, includes the following passage:
=====
H.R. 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.
=====
[Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/ ]
That makes it very clear that illegal immigrants don’t qualify for the public option.
Third, the HR 3200 language is vague, but directly, it would only cover abortion if the pregnancy was due to rape, incest or the mother’s life is in danger, which are the same restrictions as Medicaid.
And finally, only what’s approved is what carries legal power. Whatever was on the original bill that was cut out, or amended, doesn’t carry any legal power (sic). I’d like to know how you arrived to the conclusion that the original unamended unapproved bill have more legal power than the amended and approved bill.
How do you enforce against illegal’s, are you inferring a bias on my part?
Don’t I type with an acento?
Simply but anyone applying for coverage would be required to show proof they are legally in the USA (visa, a green card or a passport ect..) The emergency room is no place to be looking for a piece of paper but
We are talking about health care Insurance not Health care…….. Right………. and I expect folks would be responsible enough to apply for it before they are in the emergency room or are you suggesting we folks register for health insurance in the emergency room? maybe ACORN can be put in charge of that process! along side the (PIMPS AND HOES) Are you sure you thought this out or are you just spitting out talking points?
I would like to know how the items get cut out and how do items get added?
Maybe by folks talking about it, bitching about it and negotiating.
If folks didn’t stand up and “Astroturf it” this summer can you imagine what would be shoved up our “A Holes”, this congress famously didn’t read the stimulus bill and a senator said he would need 2 lawyers to understand the current health reform bill so why the hurry? Oh I know… you can only blame BUSH for 10% unemployment for so long before even your base looks at you sideways ( hispanic euphamism)
So I ask myself what bill was the president talking about when he set the deadline and then reinforced the deadline weeks before the deadline expired. Confused… I am…. but President Obama was ON TV saying you have to put deadlines on congress or nothing happens. I guess maybe he thought it was done but it wasn’t or maybe he was LYING…. like BUSH did before him and so on and so on and so on……..Thats what government does
Maybe they were hoping for a speedy and efficient process like the one used for the stimulus bill the one written by a communist! No wonder it didn’t create JOBS communist don’t like to work
Simply put make it specific no abortions blank blank blank..
On requiring evidence of legal status: IT’S ALREADY ON THE BILL. Read Section 246 of HR3200. I even copied the text of that section in my previous reply.
Since there’s nothing in the bill that would allow an illegal immigrant to get the public option, and the only medical attention they can get is in the ER, I can only assume you referred to that on your call for no-health-care-for-illegal-immigrants.
So now you don’t have a problem with the original proposal? How convenient for you to change topic, and disagree with what you said around 20 hours earlier.
On the ACORN hearsay: If you have evidence, not merely hearsay, about someone committing an illegal act, *show it* to the pertinent federal or state agencies! In order for them to proceed, they need *you* to bring the evidence to make these people pay for their crimes.
On abortion: Will you be able to tell a 9 year old girl, that was raped repeatedly by her father, and impregnated with twins, that she should die because it’s morally right? I can’t. But callously speaking, it would better to let the girl die, since then you won’t have to provide her with psychological, financial and educative help for years.
The abortion topic is a rather complex one, and one that can’t be simply “solved” and forgotten. What you have is at least 18 years and 9 months of additional complications which every anti-abortionist is *willing* to ignore.
H.R. 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.
=====
You must be referring to the above caption and unless I’m severely impaired or in need of reading glasses,
I do believe the above law is a dog with no TEETH, am I reading this wrong or do you still believe in the tooth fairy?
I believe abortion is a very complex issue but do not lie to me and say THEY WILL NOT BE PAID FOR and not allow the text to read “abortions will not be paid for” you are insulting my very limited intelligence and that of anyone with 2 fingers of forehead (another Hispanic euphemism) GWB was the biggest liar this country every elected UNTIL BHO came along I guess we changed one lair for another.
As for evidence of unlawful activity tune in at 5PM eastern to FOX and you’ll get an earful eyeful of federally funded, one sided, law breaking, good 4 nothing, peek-a-boo TV starring you guessed it, our very own soon to be defunded, favorite they aren’t supposed to take a side, but they do
Drum roll please
brrrrummmmmppppppppp
ACORN
You’re at it again, changing topics to smoke screen. First, you claim that illegals immigrants will get the Public Option. I show you the facts. You decide to ignore them. I repeat you the facts. Now you claim that you’re actually worried about the implementation. Can you please stick to one story? It’s the same thing you did with the “I’m worried about the original bill” nonsense.
But the fact is that illegal immigrants won’t be getting the public option. If they do, that constitutes fraud. If an immigrant, regardless of legal status, commits certain felonies[0], AFAIK this includes fraud, they are deported without any right to enter the USA *legally* for life.
Answer my question: Will you be able to tell a 9 year old girl, that was raped repeatedly by her father for 3 years, and impregnated with twins, that she should die because it’s morally right? Simple question, waiting for a simple answer, my friend.
I know that people don’t like to talk about hideous topics, like rape, but it’s a reality of life. We can’t go around throwing judgements on things without taking into consideration what the reality is. You can’t talk about abortion without talking about what happens before and after seriously. By keeping the conversations simple, all you are doing is Mickey Mousing them.
It’s curious that they haven’t presented the tapes to the police, due to, I think, that their charade will be over if they do so. That would require them to hand over all their tapes, which might contain events they don’t want others to see.
These ACORN videos seem quite like the PETA videos in the 90s. Back then, the PETA released several videos, one of them about an animal handler “mistreating” an orangutan. The animal handler sued them, demanding them, among other things, to release the whole video. What the whole video showed was that 2 PETA infiltrates heckled the orangutan to the point that it posed a danger to everyone in the room. The handler put himself in danger to protect the other people, including the PETA infiltrates.
[0] I’m not completely versed in the immigration law, so I’m not sure everything it includes.
So let me ask you this question without beating around the BUSH……. Or pulling an OBAMA and dancing around the issue…… Do you really think an Illegal or for that matter anyone would be worried about breaking another law when they are already illegal? And let me tell you… we also need immigration reform but stop telling me we will not pay and then turn around and NOT HAVE A WAY OF POLICING THE SYSTEM.
It stupid, insulting and the very reason I stand for limited government. IF Obama was serious about cutting fraud it would have been his idea but I guess the teleprompter can’t think.
When you say trust them I say “TRUST BUT VERIFY” some idiot in the 80′s said that I forget who. I guess your right the 9 year old rape victim breaks my heart as does the 15 year old prostitution ring and the 45 Million black abortions performed in America as a form of Birth control…….. BUT in order to be consistent I also disagree with the death penalty, war and I believe water boarding is torture. Let me get back on track the whole deported for life thing is very scary so scary I know a bunch of Russians that have been deported for life 3 or 4 times…. Shit it’s a free round trip home………
Show all the tapes, and even if everyone else threw the Pimps out those who supported rape are responsible for bringing down and organization not FOX or the film makers…….. Fire the CEO
I gotta tell you, you have a talent for smoke screening. I love how quickly you descend to name calling and insulting to make your so-called argument. Pro-Tip: Name-calling and insulting the other person only reinforces the perception that you lost the argument.
And yes, they are worried about getting caught breaking the law, because it undermines what they want to accomplish: the American Dream for themselves and their families. Read for yourself: http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/09/02/new-splc-report-on-latino-immigrants-in-suffolk-county-ny/ .
The “trust but verify” phrase was cleverly used by Ronald Reagan. I’m guessing he isn’t just “some idiot in the 80’s” by conservative standards.
On the abortion topic, you keep Mickey Mousing the debate, reducing it (to your convenience) to a couple of feel-good talking points without going deeper into the debate.
The 9 year old rape victim I keep talking about is not, unfortunately, a figment of my imagination. Google it and include Brazil in the search terms to see her whole plight.
And we all know people like those Russians. Why, I know a Hispanic that swam from the Caribbean to England so he could get deported for life, 3 times!
That last sentence makes absolutely no sense. Do you mean that a few rotten apples define a big organization? Then the Republicans have a bigger problem themselves: http://www.armchairsubversive.org/ .
You almost smoke-screened me on this, SBM: you still haven’t answered the following question:
Will you be able to tell a 9 year old girl, that was raped repeatedly by her father for 3 years, and impregnated with twins, that she should die because it’s morally right?
You said it “breaks [your] heart”, but didn’t explicitly answered the question.
Ok let me see a 9 year old raped repeatedly by her father for 3 years. And she is pregnant………she didn’t die from the repeated abuse but will die from the pregnancy correct? Can we add anything else like smuggled into the US via Mexican border and worked in a brothel for 2 years? How can you say this and not condemn an Acorn working for trying to help a PIMP smuggle underage girls into the US for the explicit purpose of selling them for SEX…..
Heart breaking……If her life is in danger then yes do the procedure…… but let’s also abort ACORN wait unemployment is at 10% if we do that we’ll hit 12%……….
45 Million Birth control abortions pale in comparison and back to my original question… WHY does the president say no abortion funding” but Dems will not put” no Abortion funding” in the bill. In my very limited experience when you talk out of both sides of your mouth you’re a liar Mr. President. Just like BUSH before you and Bill before him…. This ain’t change its more of the same………..
[SBM: Read comment #11. Comment #12 was a continuation that didn't appear until hours after your reply.]
[Everyone else: Take into consideration that comment #11 didn't appear until several hours after SBM's reply.]
To answer your question: the public option will be limited by the same provisions Medicaid is on abortion. It will only cover abortions on cases of *rape*, *incest* and *danger to the life of the mother*, nothing else.
You still keep dodging my question, SBM: Will you be able to tell a 9 year old girl, that was raped repeatedly by her father for 3 years, and impregnated with twins, that she should die because it’s morally right? Why can’t you give a straight answer, not a muddled one trying to prove how macho you are.
You keep dodging, polluting, Mickey Mousing, smoke-screening, name-calling, insulting and propagating false information to stay away from actually debating the issues. These tactics are not to find a solution to a problem, but rather to win for your side at any cost. Indeed, at the cost of suffering and deaths of millions of Americans.
These topics (abortion, health care, immigration) aren’t theoretical problems, nor are they a game or a sport where someone needs to win. We need to keep in mind that millions of people suffer from our actions and inactions on them.
I keep bringing the story of the 9-year old rape victim due to the refusal to acknowledge that pregnancy and abortion are unrelated to previous and following events. Indeed, I believe both sides of the abortion issue are wrong on how they are approaching the issue. We need to face the adjacent, crucial, but ignored issues to solve other problems.
Your comment that “she didn’t die from the repeated abuse but will die from the pregnancy correct?” makes it sound like rape is not so bad after all. This attitude is wrong in so many ways, I can’t put them in words.
Read the following opinion on ACORN: http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/09/18/acorn/
SBM, I’ll also like to point a couple of things.
First, you said, “BUT in order to be consistent I also disagree with the death penalty, war and I believe water boarding is torture,” but later you state that “but let’s also abort ACORN”. Aren’t you advocating the death of people here?
Second, on the question of the 9 year old victim, you reluctantly stated that “If her life is in danger then yes do the procedure”, and yet you wrote earlier that “Simply put make it specific no abortions blank blank blank.” If you don’t want “abortions blank blank blank”, how would it be possible to make the abortion to this victim?