Log in
2012 May 22 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2009/09/10/nothing-new-or-not-much/
0
0
  |   26 comments

obama_speechWell, earlier I said I would analyze the speech, and I will, at least as best I can.

Basically, I have to go with those who say we didn’t see much new tonight.  While I was happy to see Obama agree to look into tort reform, his speech tonight had little else that was new.  If there were two things I really wanted to see it was: 1) A drop of the public option and 2) A drop of the mandate.

The latter made his plan all the more attractive to me during the campaign (and none of them were really pulling me in).  It emphasized what Obama was talking about a lot tonight: individual choice.  When you force everyone to buy insurance, whether or not they want it, that’s not a choice.  Yeah, yeah, I know there a lot of other things that are not choices (he compared this loss of liberty to auto insurance), but one topic at a time.  Health insurance is a very personal thing, one in which people should have the maximum liberty to wield.  A mandate encroaches on that.

The public option, meanwhile, now seems pointless.

Why, you ask?  Well, by the time he got to it, I was near convinced it was never going to crop up in the speech.  He had assured us so many time before then that people would be cared for if the lost or didn’t have insurance that it didn’t seem necessary any more.  I mean, what’s the point if everything else you’re proposing is going to do the same job?

Of course, he framed it in terms of “competition,” to make sure the other guys are being fair.  I simply don’t accept that it’s the job of government to be running their own companies to see who can compete better.  Encourage competition in the private sector, sure.  Provide a safety net, yes.  But with everything else he said (much of seeming to come in form making things illegal), the public option seems toothless to complete the goals he wants.  It doesn’t need to be set up to keep things fair if other legislation is already doing that.

That, of course, leaves us with very few options as to why the public option was still on Obama’s table tonight.  The conservative explanation, to butt out all other competition in a march toward single-payer, is looking like a pretty attractive one right now.  Of course, no doubt someone will let me know why I’m wrong.

So tonight we saw little new, except perhaps a nod toward tort reform.  It’s a bone for Republicans, and I’m skeptical that they’ll bite.  The specter of the public option and a forced mandate will cause them to look past it.  That’s nothing to say of the fact he completely ignored the Democrat’s part in demonizing Republicans over the past month or so, and ruthlessly attacked only them.  Admitting his own party’s wrongdoing might have at least won him some brownie points in the “post-partisanship” category, even if it didn’t win him more votes.

Obama and the Democrats need to concede more before they’ll bring a significant number of Republicans to their side.  The public option needs to go, as do mandates.  Until then, they will continue to find it very difficult to get a bill passed.  There is more that needs to worked on, but those are the two biggest things I see as problematic with current proposed legislation.  Get rid of those things, and then perhaps Obama and Democrats will actually find more receptive Republicans, but not before then.

Update: To perhaps skip the “why not a patient-centered system” ideals that keeps cropping up (though they may anyway): I am still sympathetic to those ideas.  However, I also think that if it’s to happen, it’ll only happen in small steps.  It’ll only happen conservatively, if you will.  And maybe not until a big change occurs in the attitude of patients in this country toward their healthcare.  Most people are still too attached to the current system, and a change in attitude must come before a change in legislation.

  1. Posted by Interested
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #101881 ›
    Interested Speech of contradictions. One hand he talks about how great it is for insurance companies how they'll gain all these new customers (at the cost of other customers that we all know they already charge extra for to cover the uninsured - would those rates drop? doubt it). Chumps up the Public Insurance as a fantastic option. but then says only 5% may partake in it. And goes on to say that the insurance companies won't have any customers unless they play along in the government's sandbox. He says that people have to be covered - (i.e. fines) then the next breath says that all this will open up avenues if someone wants to get health coverage. All this speech was geared towards was be just conservative enough to get the Blue Dogs - but not so far center as to loose his very fragile left wing.
  2. Michael Merritt That assumes that all Blue Dogs will go for this. Count me skeptical. I know some Blue Dogs who would be traitors to their party if they could see where they worked - some are industries that rely on free market policies.
  3. Posted by c3
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #101886 ›
    c3 My persistent questions: 1) If we spend 50% more than the next country with no better outcomes and 1 in 7 Americans uninsured tell me again how more money will help? 2) So why are we "protecting" Medicare when we know it will be bankrupt in eight years? 3) Can we really rage against the "special interests" who are fighting us when all of them (AMA, AHIP, Big Pharma ...) have supported the reforms? ( We have met the enemy...) 4)How will shielding the consumers of healthcare from the cost of healthcare control prices? (That never worked with my kids when I bought their breakfast cereal.)
  4. Posted by c3
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #101887 ›
    c3 One more: 1) Is this "waste, fraud and abuse" the same stuff that President Reagan about? (PS My Aunt says her eye lift isn't your "waste, fraud and abuse". Do you want to talk to her about that?)
  5. Posted by Tully
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #101941 ›
    Tully Comparing his plan-that-isn't to two entitlement programs that are trillions of dollars in the red? I guess that's appropriate. If there is all that money that can be obtained in eliminating waste and fraud in MCR/MCD, why have they not been going after it even WITHOUT a wishlist in hand? As I keep asking, how does stimulating demand by adding more money to a supply-restricted system going to bring costs DOWN? (It won't. Basic math, which is apparently a step above and beyond for "progressives.") I liked how he claimed the "public option" wouldn't need any federal subsidies, then bragged it up by comparing it to public colleges, some of the most heavily subsidized institutions in existence. Talk about chutzpah! I said it all well over a year ago after hearing Obama speak at a campaign event, with this simple observation:
    Obama will give you everything you ever want or need. And a pony! Unless you're rich or Bush, then we're going to eat you because you're evil. But he had no suggestions as to how to actually PAY for giving everybody everything they want. Other than eating the rich. And Bush. (News flash from reality--there aren't nearly enough rich to go around, nor, despite their fecundity, enough Bushes.) At a ballpark guess, tripling the discretionary federal budget would be insufficient to fulfill the promises made. But he shore do talk purty. The Reader's Digest version of the speech: America needs to come together. Our bitter divisions are everyone else's fault. Especially Bush and the rich. We'll eat them, Obama will wave his magic Hope-Change™ leadership unity wand as we dance around the bloody bonepiles singing Kumbayah, and then we can all have everything we want and live happily ever after.
    I wrote that a year ago last February, BEFORE this admin doubled the national debt, with trillions more of spending on their wish list. Nothing has changed. And I still don't have my pony.
  6. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #101945 ›
    Doomed This was the worst speech he has ever given. Bar None. He lacked conviction. He lacked courage. He lacked Vison and he relized that for the first time that every word that came out of his mouth last night that someone was calling him a liar. He simply repeated the left's talking points verbatim and in fact if you look into it the republicans were NOT handed a copy of the speech as is traditional but an embossed, laminated card that was the talking points of the speech. One thing it was. It was a speech designed for one thing. To gear up his left faithful because he gave them their marching orders. Those orders are...Your going to give us everything we want and we are going to use parlimentary proceedures to pass health care reform against the wishes of the majority of the American public. You have your orders. Now march. Oh and by the way America....to show you that I am a nice guy....I will praise a couple republicans and I will try something the Bush Administration proposed......tort reform in a few select areas where of course not a single democrat practices law. Perhaps the worst major speech ever given.....Ranks right up there with Jimmy Carter and the Chris Mathews "Lets all not be so depressed" speech.
  7. Posted by Interested
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #101947 ›
    Interested reading blogs from the loony left category shows a smattering of support - but mostly they're pretty darn unhappy with him. Of course they equate him to being a right-winger. one size doesn't fit all in politics.
  8. Michael Merritt Obama isn't going single-payer, and I think there's some evidence that he'd drop the public option if losing it passes a bill. Of course they're angry.
  9. Posted by Interested
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #102036 ›
    Interested even funnier now is the questions from the far left as to who's Obama talking about when he keeps saying far left.
  10. Posted by Tully
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #102047 ›
    Tully blockquote cite="#commentbody-102028"> Michael Merritt :Obama isn’t going single-payer, and I think there’s some evidence that he’d drop the public option if losing it passes a bill. Giant Wooden Badger or Giant Wooden Rabbit, the aim is the same. Govenment control of health care. But as deep as Obama has now committed himself, he needs to sign something that he can claim as a victory, even if it's an abject capitulation.
  11. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #102160 ›
    Jay_C well... Here's somthing new... well, not new, I thought this would happen anyway.. but still.. Give illegals amnesty, therefore, no more problem with illegals and healthcare.... problem solved...poof! (Of course, that still raises the question of costs of covering them...weather their status is legal or illegal)...then theirs this gem... "He also staked out a position that anyone in the country legally should be covered - a major break with the 1996 welfare reform bill, which limited most federal public assistance programs only to citizens and longtime immigrants." Why stop there! I say, load it up! lets cover everyone on the planet! :) http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/18/obamas-solution-on-illegals-and-health-care-amnesty/
  12. Posted by Jason Arvak ›
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #102161 ›
    Jason Arvak Those who insist on trying to punish illegal immigrants and block reform efforts that would encourage immigration and make legal those already here should take a look at long-term demographic trends before further indulging their prejudices. Japan and Western Europe are already starting to suffer the ill effects of short-sighted and culturally purist immigration policies. We should learn their lessons early rather than continuing to try to exacerbate their errors. The preponderance of economic analysis has shown that immigration -- even including illegal immigration -- is a long-term economic benefit rather than a cost. Those who focus on the short-term costs as a way of justifying what appears to be their underlying emotional dislike of "those people" (there is usually some racist terminology here, I'm being nice in my characterization) can only most charitiably be described as miss the point. Providing a practical path to legal status would reap enormous economic benefits while continuing to try to drive people away risks only replicating and exacerbating past errors while doing nothing to actually address the problems in immigration policy.
  13. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #102163 ›
    Jay_C Ok, fine….(deep breath…) for the sake of argument, I'll say it is not as easy as their being illegal.... even if it was "OK" (which it isn't since they are illegal) buy even if it was... Why the administration's change to first say there are 50,000,000 (number included illegal’s) without healthcare, then backpedal on that number to specifically exclude illegal’s (the president himself said they wouldn't be covered) and then, change their tune AGAIN to say, let’s just make it easier and put them back in (change their title to "pseudo-legal")... That still doesn't answer the question of cost, doesn't answer the question of flip flopping on coverage / non coverage of illegal’s nor does it answer the question on the change in the number of people that "need coverage". Why the sneaky tactics? Why not, from the very beginning say, look, we need healthcare reform, and immigration reform (which I agree with both by the way) my proposal is amnesty for some illegal’s...and here is my specific plan for that..Also, I want to include them in our healthcare initiatives, and here is how we are going to pay for it.... This administration never made that case in the umpteenth times they have talked to us about healthcare.. "Those who focus on the short-term costs as a way of justifying what appears to be their underlying emotional dislike of “those people”" Most illegals are good people Jason; don’t paint me with that brush please. My position has nothing to do with their being nice or productive, or smart.
  14. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #102164 ›
    Doomed Jason you continually pound that same drum. So Ill get out my drum and pound it back. Before I begin I believe the only solution is to legalize everyone here illegally that is not a criminal. I am not a bigot. Protectionist perhaps but not a bigot. You seem to me to continually conflate two arguments. Those who are opposed to Illegal immigration are opposed to immigration period. You constantly lump the two together because some on the right have voiced bigotry when it comes to immigration. But lets look at a more poignant example of the unintended cosequences of legalizing all these illegals in the next year or two. The Bacchus bill just came out of the Finance committee. The cost of health care is estimated at 862 billion dollars over 10 years. They work with numbers the CBO gives them. Those numbers do NOT include the costs that will be incurred in insuring a large number of the 10-20 million Illegals that will be legalized in the coming year to 18 months under the Obama immigration reform coming most likely next year. This is the US government where when they say something will cost 800 billion you can double, triple or quadruple it and they have not even taken into account all the illegals they are going to legalize AND using the 4x (FOUR TIMES) the poverty limit to either pay for or assist in paying for health care you can see that that 862 billion is going to sky rocket to exorbitant heights. Legalize the illegals but then lets fix it. No more loopholes and fancy wording and failures to fund the INS or border guards. The unintended consequences of that is becoming startling clear and while they might provide economic benefits in a free market system, our free market system has been whittled down year after year after year till we are nearly as socialized as most of Europe. Americans have turned a blind eye to that fact but the democrats keep throwing it in our face when we scream about socialized medicine. Social security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaide and now health care. Fully 1/2 of our budget will be for Socialism or socialized projects. Those Immigrants are becoming a burden...not an economic benefit.
  15. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #102165 ›
    Jay_C And why do some express anger, outrage or dismiss those that take the simplistic approach to this? The law is the law for a lot of things, should we be able to pick and choose when it applies and when it doesn’t? If I can get a ticket to J walking (which I have) then I would think being here illegally would get at least the same response. Why do some label those that believe as I do “racists” or say don’t I don’t like “those people” or things of that nature.. Look, I am not saying we shouldn’t change the law through the proper processes and in a manner that has the light of day for all Americans to discuss and debate. This process may be painfully slow for some, and I want reform, but the methods that have been employed by this and the last administration.. The use of “emergencies” to get things done, just doesn’t cut it in my book.
  16. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #102166 ›
    Jay_C Hi Jason, I apologize.. You said “Those who insist on trying to punish illegal immigrants and block reform efforts that would encourage immigration and make legal those already here” I took that as a jab at me... I am not doing any of these things I am just trying to play by the rules the best I know how, so I guess you are not addressing me and my views. Sorry if I took that the wrong way…
  17. Posted by Jason Arvak ›
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #102170 ›
    Jason Arvak I agree that the law should be enforced, but I do not agree that the enforcement of every law should be draconian. Those hostile to illegal immigrants usually take such an absolutist stance on the sanction -- forced deportation -- that their credibility and even their rationality seems to me legitimately questionable. An alternative approach that would be more legally, ethically, and economically rational would be to require payment of a fine (just like a fine for trespassing, the most similar crime to illegal immigration) instead. It is precisely because so many opponents of illegal immigration demand such draconian and even cruel punishments that I perceive them as frequently being motivated by racism instead of pragmatism.
  18. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #102176 ›
    Jay_C Labelling something "draconian" or "cruel" is subjective. I could just as easily say the effects of those here illigally are "cruel" and "selfish" as far as the illegals themselves are concerned.. This also is an opinion, but no more right or wrong that saying laws are draconian or cruel. Let's take those emotional terms out of the debate for now, OK? I agree a fine or something that would be better than what we are doing now...Igonring the problem... but the devil would be in the details of how one would go about imoplementing this, where the proceeds would go, how the money would be used, etc)
  19. Posted by Jason Arvak ›
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #102182 ›
    Jason Arvak I don't think that there is much legitimate controversy that physically throwing people out of the country, splitting parents from children, and the like is "draconian". And I am not willing to strip away the real context of what the anti-immigration program amounts to in practice, in part because I believe that causing maximum suffering among a group of people they hate is part of their intention. I recognize that this is taking motivations into account, which I normally reject, but I think this issue is an exception based on the actual hatred and vitriol contained within the anti-immigrant rhetoric, broadly speaking. Hatred towards immigrants does not seem to me incidental or marginal, but rather seems dominant in the broader anti-immigration movement. P.S. I am not saying that you are personally a bigot, Jay_C, but rather that the tenor of the overall immigration debate and the dominant set of proposals from the anti-immigration side seems to me unavoidably corrupted by the influence of highly racist rhetorical leaders that dominate its agenda and tone.
  20. Posted by Tully
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #102292 ›
    Tully The preponderance of economic analysis has shown that immigration — even including illegal immigration — is a long-term economic benefit rather than a cost. Somewhat true -- research indicates a decidedly positive net benefit from legal immigration. However, that does NOT hold for illegal immigration, which is primarly driven by un- or under-educated and unskilled labor seeking jobs. To reach a net benefit that includes figuring illegal immigration in the mix requires you to use the positive effects of legal immigration to offset the negatives of that illegal immigration. The "long term economic benefit(s)" of illegal immigration (cheap labor) accrue mostly to employers who benefit from the cheap labor (and thus to consumers and shareholders/owners) while the costs fall very heavily and directly on our own underclasses through depressed wages and employment opportunities, and increased competition for public education and social services. In particular, as the benefits are accrued to the public at large through consumption, the richer you are, the more you benefit. The converse is also true -- the poorer you are, the less you gain from the consumption benefits, and the more likely it is that you will suffer disproportionally from the wage-depressing effect of illegal immigration and increased competition for state services, and be a net loser. It is a highly unequal distribution of results with the benefits accruing to the upper and middle classes at a focused and direct cost to the lower-wage demographic. Those who focus on the short-term costs as a way of justifying what appears to be their underlying emotional dislike of “those people” (there is usually some racist terminology here, I’m being nice in my characterization) can only most charitiably be described as miss the point Perhaps. But lower and lower-middle classes opposed to illegal immigration are certainly NOT going against their own economic self-interest in being against same, regardless of any racist overtones and/or rhetoric. Quite the contrary. That such opposition may end up coached and couched in veiled racism does not alter that truth. Regardless of emotionally motivating factors, their opposition has an entirely rational basis. Our long-term demographic trends will continue to lead to an increasingly ethnically diverse nation regardless of any new immigration, illegal or otherwise. Simply put, our more-recent ethnic populations reproduce faster than our generations-native populations. We will have increasingly larger proportions of Hispanics even if we seal the borders. Providing a practical path to legal status would reap enormous economic benefits Not if the immigrants coming in are unskilled and uneducated labor. Importing more poor does not benefit us. We've already got plenty, thank you. Skilled and educated immigrants are a major plus. Unskilled and un- or under-educated immigrants are, economically speaking, generations away from being of overall benefit.
  21. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #102298 ›
    Jay_C "lower and lower-middle classes opposed to illegal immigration are certainly NOT going against their own economic self-interest in being against same, regardless of any racist overtones and/or rhetoric. Quite the contrary. That such opposition may end up coached and couched in veiled racism does not alter that truth. Regardless of emotionally motivating factors, their opposition has an entirely rational basis. " Didn't even think of that at the time, good point Tully. "Providing a practical path to legal status would reap enormous economic benefits" There already is one.... Legal immigration.. some just choose to ignore it. Like with anything else in life, when you roll the dice and decide to not play by the rules, and you get caught you should pay the consequesnces.
  22. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #102299 ›
    Jay_C How about ultra-restrictive “amnesty”? Illegals would wait in line like everyone and go through the exact same processes, tests, etc..like anyone else that legally wants citizenship.... The illegal’s here have to wait just as long for citizenship as the ones in line, yet they are physically here. The only difference is their location on this planet (their bodies happen to be in the US). However during this waiting time: They have zero voting rights (unless they become citizens through the process above), they receive zero federal or state, or town dollars or cents for anything. Cannot be legally hired for any job, can't use our schools (This would not apply to kids of illegal’s that are born here, as they would be citizens) If splitting up families is a concern, then they can be with their families here. They just won’t get paid, won’t pay taxes, can't vote and can't work in this country legally, if they are caught, they are sent home to whichever country they came from. The only exception to their working here is if they applied for a retro-active visa (but they would not get special treatment for being in the US, they would have to wait in line like everyone else, again, it is just that they would be physically here.) This would not work out any issue regarding the logistics of healthcare (they wouldn't be covered under my plan..Again the only plan I would go for would mean they get zero dollars) perhaps their home countries would be sent an invoice for any bills they would accumulate in our hospitals. Even I think this would still have loopholes, but it would be a start to a goal of crating an airtight policy to address opponents for a "path to legalization" for illegal’s already here.
  23. Posted by Jason Arvak ›
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #102315 ›
    Jason Arvak I think the provisions in your proposal that would bar illegals from working and from receiving any form of assistance for a period of time that would likely amount to years (due to the obstructions that clog up even the most legitimate immigration applications and about which anti-immigration forces are obstructing any reform -- a problem with which I have direct experience) is really a death sentence by starvation for illegals and their families and thus I find it to be an unacceptably excessive punishment for what is a minor and victimless crime of illegal immigration. I suppose forcing illegals to choose between the options of (1) death by starvation or lack of even emergency medical care, (2) splitting up their family, or (3) dragging their family to go to live in destitution in a land where many of the family members won't even know the language would definitely appeal to those on the anti-immigration side for whom hatred of illegals has reached the level of a religious or ethnic crusade, but I would not agree that it would constitute either a wise or just public policy. And it would not provide a meaningful path to legalization, since anti-immigration forces would continue to block legalization for brown people by using pro forma denials and other tools of bureaucratic obstructionism.
  24. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #102319 ›
    Jay_C "death by starvation or lack of even emergency medical care" Well, at least my plan would still give them the same medical coverage they have now, there would just be a bill sent to their home country. Even better, perhaps a standing agreement could be established with their home Governments. As far as food, I'm sure there are many non-governement dollars that would be avialable via charities. Actually, now that i think of it, the other food option could be the same as the proposal I have for medical care, billing their home countries. So in synopsis my proposal would allow them basic medical coverage (defined as what they can get now, or a standing agreement with their governments, food, AND they would still be with their familes here in the US! As far illegal parents that have children here, it should go without saying that their children would be able to receive assistance as would be deemed appropriate by federal / state / local agencies, since they are citizens.
  25. Posted by Jason Arvak ›
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #102321 ›
    Jason Arvak
    Well, at least my plan would still give them the same medical coverage they have now, there would just be a bill sent to their home country. As far as food, I’m sure there are many non-governement dollars that would be avialable via charities. Actually, now that i think of it, the other food option could be the same as the proposal I have for medical care, billing their home countries.
    And if the food banks run out and their "home country" (a questionable term for people who have lived here for years and have family who are born citizens) refuses to pay? Sorry, still unacceptably punitive for insufficient reason.
    As far illegal parents that have children here, it should go without saying that their children would be able to receive assistance as would be deemed appropriate by federal / state / local agencies, since they are citizens.
    It does not go without saying since the standard position of the anti-immigration side is to presume that all family members of illegal immigrants should share in the dramatic, hard-core suffering they want to impose as grossly disproportionate punishment for the crime of being economically desperate enough to pursue the work that no Americans want. Let's remember that the standard presumption on the anti-immigration side is that all benefits are stolen by those horrible brown people for use in buying drugs and alcohol. I don't think we can just assume away that belief and assume that your immigration enforcement proposal would provide a clear path to family members who are citizens being allowed to access benefits. I am not saying you hold these unreasonable and racist views, Jay_C, but those who would politically control the implementation of your proposal are. The only compromise that would be appropriate from my point of view would involve dramatic reform of the legal immigration process to remove the barriers and bureaucracy that make legal immigration all but impossible for most of these people. Once that was done and it was realistic to ask these people to stand in a line that actually moved, then we could talk seriously about mechanisms to force people to actually stand in it. But as long as the line is a joke that doesn't move and doesn't give anyone real prospects of legal immigration, I think it is reprehensible to search for ways to punish them grossly in excess of the severity of their crime.
  26. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #102957 ›
    Doomed Barak Obama did not hand out a copy of his speech and I wondered why. Its always tradition to hand out a copy to the opposing party. Well I think I found out why. Watch this video. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/09/27/social-security-deficit-next-year-ap-unconcerned The democrats shouted YOU LIE...oh no they didnt say you lie...they jumped immediately to their feet and hooted and hollared and applauded. In effect saying you lie. This was PREPLANNED and orchestrated. They could do that because they had a copy of the speech in hand prior to the speech. Obama's handlers no doubt didnt want the same treatment of him his party was willing to give to President Bush. Obama didnt want a YOU lie moment.
1