Obama On Health Care Reform: "Time For Bickering Is Over"

News for ya:

As Big Banks Repay Bailout, U.S. Sees Profit

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/as-big-banks-repay-bailout-us-sees-profit/

You'd better sit down, folks.

Article 31 of the Iraqi Constitution, drafted by your right-wing Bushies in 2005 and ratified by the Iraqi people, includes state-guaranteed (single payer) healthcare for life for every Iraqi citizen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-dorlester/guaranteed-health-care-in_b_280528.html

"...Our collective failure to meet this challenge - year after year, decade after decade - has led us to a breaking point... The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action."

What sanctimonious posturing!

Swing voters like me were hoping for some specifics. Like how you plan to fund this despite the fact that Federal government can't manage the cost of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid which is going bust in 2017. Or when you are going acknowledge our staggering, GDP-killing $11.8 Trillion (and still growing debt). Or acknoledge how our Federal Treasury is FLAT BROKE! You talk about greed, waste and excess in the health industry. How about looking at your office and congress first, Mr. President. You think its just the right wing loons and political opportunist who are shouting you down? How about swing voters like me who have seen through your pretense and maoist economics. You pour billions of our tax dollars back into the brokerage firms and wall st., who wiped out our savings, made countless homeless and unemployed. Where was the media's sustained outrage in that?! And now you want to push our faltering economy to the brink again with even more deficit spending?! Money you don't even have? Money you can't even manage?! How did this bogus 'health reform' eclipsed the number one priority I elected you for? To fix OUR economy and STOP the government's out-of-control, inflationary spending. But I guess you, the media and your supporters don't give a damn about that. More entitlements, nevermind the cost. (BTW, who are you kidding when you say it will cost $900 Billion over ten years?) $900 Billion from where? Are you going to borrow more from the Chinese? Are you going to devalue our currency by printing money? You are one to talk about'BREAKING POINT'.

Which is fine. Because, come 2010, it's not just wing nuts you should be worried about. It's the silent majority like me who will shove your party and their cavalier attitude about our catastrophic national debt...OUT THE DOOR.

Supporters of a tax payer subsidized "Public Option". Since you are so found of citing Moore's "Sicko"...I dare you to watch "I.O.U.S.A" also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_TjBNjc9Bo

And then tell me why you think a debt addicted government is eminently qualified to lower healthcare cost.

you choose to ignore that the GOVERNMENT you love to hate stopped the huge crisis the fraudulent republican corporations put US in!

So what was the government supposed to do?

let hell break loose?

What about choosing to ignore the $300 billion wasted on Iraq, additionally to universal health care for each Iraqi passed by the Bushies?!

Your hate for government is paranoid when forgetting who have made fuckups and totally picks the bad deeds according to your political preference. A perfect GOP TOOL.

the horrific side of all this is that corporate greed from insurance superassholes is the real motivator for the opposition in the senate, of course backed by the political ideology of the "self educated" by half truths and guns.

Like any other developed society has such a big deal with their population being such morons and opposing universal health care for themselves. Have this people experienced the living standards any other country than this one?

Lets keep the NEOCONS morons fueling the nationalistic fear by using the mighty double speak they know, and the only simplistic view of the world order their constituency understand, while keeping the corrupt afloat.

Let me know when the food fight is over so I can eat my jello in peace.

My favorite moment is the "What Bill?" guy gesturing to his crotch. Like, why should Bill have to pay for Dick's Viagra?

Notice that Wilson wasn't the only mumbling, grumbling, hissing, pissing GOPer. He just took it a step further and, ironically, that makes him a perfect whipping boy for his suddenly contrite Republican colleagues.

We can keep counting the angels dancing on the head of the pin and keep on talking about government intrusiveness and moral hazards and taxes and deficits all we want.

The fact is all that all the other industrialized democracies on earth offer universal health care, and they look at us - citizens and governments alike - like we're nuts.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

The Republicans still can't get over the fact that we elected a colored guy president.

I was waiting for the guy to yell, The President is a... BONNNNNNGGGGG. what?

The President is a .......BOOOOONNNNNGGGGG.

"What did you expect? 'Welcome, sonny'? 'Make yourself at home'? 'Marry my daughter'? You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."

god, what great writing.

all we need now is Gene wilder as willy wonka doing his "YOU LOSE" "Good Day, Sir" speech.

I SAID GOOD DAY!

Thanks Jacque, I needed that after reading these comments.

I suppose when Obama got to the podium he paused and said "'Scuse me while I whip this out".

scooby doo?

that's such a nuanced take on it. Did your first grade teacher help you type that?

Be nice if he'd submit a bill. Odds are it's going to be a giant failboat since every ounce of legislation he's been involved with thus far has been an epic failure... but hey why look at the bill when you can believe a bunch of super subjective and utterly vague prose spoken by a sweet tongued politician.

Or as the senator from texas so eloquently put it...

"What bill?"

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

reading the comments here is giving me an ulcer. And despite the 'health insurance' I have I wouldn't be able to afford ulcer treatment. Perhaps my insurance would even drop me the moment I need ongoing treatment and don't make them enough money.

But still, let's not change anything, the system is just PERFECT!

obama apparently had his ass-kickin' boots on last night, and good for him. i like how he used small words and short sentences to appeal to the unwashed masses (who probably weren't listening anyway).

everyone wants change until it comes down to actually renegotiating the status quo. it's all a big wank.

as is Obama.

you are a liar.

I too am wary of a government that has given us failing schools, sickly hospitals, no mass transportation vision and wasteful wars taking more control over health insurance. Our government's track record is very discouraging.

But here's a few other steps the government can take right away to help make Americans healthier, and less dependent on the healthcare industry.

- Mandate daily physical education classes at all public schools. Math and sciences are important subjects for our country's future - PE is just as important at this time.

- Stop subsidies and taxpayer money that goes to corn growers. Cheap corn syrup and cheap cattle feed has contributed to the obesity explosion.

- Make funding for a nationwide network of high speed rails a top priority. The president outlined a starter plan for this idea back in April. Getting Americans, at least in part, out of their automobiles is good for their health and for our country's economic security. And if fuel costs rise again, as they will, the escalating cost of jet fuel may ultimately doom the long distance airline business. A nationwide network of high speed rail could one day replace our airline system.

While the debate rages on about health care reform, our government can take other concrete steps to help to keep Americans out of the doctors office.

- Stop subsidies and taxpayer money that goes to corn growers. Cheap corn syrup and cheap cattle feed has contributed to the obesity explosion.

Sadly, no one is going to have the balls to remove these asinine policies. However, all the counter intuitive policies just make the case for stopping government from growing. Because when you have policies that cancel each other out, you're left with waste.

Right, like the government's idea of put a tax on high-fructose drinks.

Obama's proposal is excellent, and makes more than enough concessions to the right-wing.

Now it's up to the Senate to get this done. If they can't, they're going to have some angry constituents.

Can we stop calling this healthcare reform and start calling this a wellness tax? No need for smoke and mirrors, the wealthier will undoubtedly be paying more and the poorer will undoubtedly be getting something for nothing. A reward for being lazy if you will.

Exactly. Liberal Democrats cannot and haven't answered the moral hazard problem.

Bring it up with one and watch how quickly they deflect the question or fire an ad hominem attack on how you hate poor, black people.

It's fantastically awful.

Now if someone can come up with an argument to Obama's plan that doesn't immediately come off as ignorant or cruel, that will be an interesting conversation. Until then, it's just the usual angry Gothamist commenters trying to outdickhead one another and delivering bad one-liners.

saying poor people are lazy is extremely naive

they're free to get jobs, pay their way and call us wrong. But if your hand is out your mouth should be shut.

oh, my mistake, the recession is because people are lazy; all those jobs that we lost, because people are lazy; all those people searching for jobs 40+ hours a week, totally lazy.

We made it through the depression without redoing healthcare and the world kept running, it'll happen again.

Which depression are you talking about?

Basically, every syllable out of fraudster Obama's mouth is a lie. It's about time somebody in congress called him on it. Too bad the schmuck apologized after.

the *FRAUDSTERRRRRR*!! OOOOOOO!!!

good one, jerk.

when that motherfucker called the president a liar i wanted to cut that piece of shit. not only was he wrong, but to do it in a speech calling for more civility was sickening. it was a new low in republican politics.

this ain't england.

Like a typical cult member, you get hysterical when the cult leader is criticized.

Ha! After the shit that Bush was called, you lost your high ground. Shut up. Seriously.

not in the middle of an address to a joint session of congress, he wasn't.

Big of your side. But every day he was called a terrorist and the perpetrator of 9/11. The fact that I hear a word of whining regarding the digs at Obama is pathetic. You dished out way worse daily for 8 years, let the Grand Orator suck it up for 6 months (while he does nothing but appear on tv and spend money - just like a Real Housewife of any county). Unless someone calls Obama a racial epithet or calls for his "lynching" it's all fair game as far as I'm concerned.

"But every day he was called a terrorist and the perpetrator of 9/11."

One quote from any elected official saying anything close to this, please. Otherwise you're comparing apples to oranges.

It's already known to all rational persons that there are lunatics on all sides who will say ridiculous things.

The other thing worth noting is that Rep. Wilson is a Colonel in the Army National Guard (possibly Reserves). The statement and context could be a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Specifically, UCMJ Article 88: Contempt Toward Officials might apply if it is somehow determined that he was in military status (unlikely). Nonetheless, it is disturbing to see a member of Congress demonstrate such disrespect for the office. What's next, fog horns, foam #1 fingers, and funny hats?

It doesn't apply.

"... and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Army National Guard does not fall under the authority of the president of the United States... if it did the president would be in prison for violating Posse Commitatus.

Yes in England they shout in Parliament all the time but then again they also have a national health care system!

"Bickering" as comrade obama puts it is a hallmark of democracy. It's a called a difference of opinion and people have a constitutional right to express them. He must mean democracy is over then. He has a point.

What a stupid thing to say.

You must be new here.

The government has run every other program they handle into the ground yet the brainwashed obamatrons think this will be different somehow.

Tort reform now! Any health care overhaul that doesn't put the blood-sucking trial lawyers in their place is just a load of bullshit.

And if you believe obama's lie about the federal health system not being open to any and all illegals, I have some swamp land in Florida I want to sell you.

Tort reform did jack to lower health care costs in Texas. The problem isn't that litigation costs are obscene; they constitute less than %1 of overall health care costs. The tort reform we need is to reform the insurance industries that overcharge for malpractice insurances because the right has warped tort into this giant monster in the eyes of the prevailing conventional wisdom.

"Now, I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I've talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. So -- so -- so I'm 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...

... I know that the Bush administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these ideas. I think it's a good idea, and I'm directing my secretary of health and human services to move forward on this initiative today."

There will never be tort reform because all the politicians are lawyers. Why should they dent their own bread and butter? I was surprised Obama even mentioned anything tangentially related to it.

That's true, the trial lawyer lobby has a stranglehold on DC, especially the democrat party. They are the real reason behind the skyrocketing medical costs.

I'm a big fan of Obama, but it's the same old speech over and over again. When does Washington stop the talking and do the action? Words are easier than doing something.

In European parliaments, isn't it common for MPs to yell at the PM when he/she delivers a speech? Maybe we need more of that.

Yawn.

I got something stuck in my eye recently, and I was freaked out I had a bad scratch on my cornea or something stuck in my eye, so I went to the ER late at night. The resident on call looked at my eye for 3 seconds and told me I was fine.

3 days later, I was finally able to get an appointment with an actual eye doctor since my eye was still hurting, and he pulled a splinter out of my eyeball. 5 weeks later, I received a bill for $700 from the ER, which my insurance has refused to pay.

Granted, I pay $600/month for insurance already, so I'm not really sure what I'm paying for.

Welcome to the friendly world of "deductibles" where the insurance company doesn't pay shit until after YOU pay the first $500 or $1000 or whatever dollars of your medical bills for the coverage period.

So if you don't rack up a certain dollar amount (exceeding the deductible) of medical care for the coverage period, then the insurance company just took all those monthly payments you made over the year and did jack shit for you.

Fun isn't it?

A friend of mine made a very GOOD point Tuesday:

"Why should I pay more taxes to give medical care to people who are drains on society? Drug addicts, unemployed, criminals, etc."

You missed the biggest free-riders on this system: the obese. It's a moral hazard problem. Liberal Democrats have no answer for this, though most of this country is overweight.

So by the moral hazard definition we should also not pay the health costs for skydivers, free climbers, motorcycle users, cat and dog owners, swimmers, drinkers, car drivers, pot smokers, parents of small children who put things up their noses, jaywalkers, people who own computer keyboards, construction workers, people who sleep around, boat owners, vegans, people who drink tap water unfiltered, people who travel abroad, iPod owners - I could do this all day, really.

There's also the presumption that obese people don't exercise or watch what they eat. We could also do the correlation-is-not-causation dance as well.

So by the moral hazard definition we should also not pay the health costs for skydivers, free climbers, motorcycle users, cat and dog owners, swimmers, drinkers, car drivers, pot smokers, parents of small children who put things up their noses, jaywalkers, people who own computer keyboards, construction workers, people who sleep around, boat owners, vegans, people who drink tap water unfiltered, people who travel abroad, iPod owners - I could do this all day, really.

There's also the presumption that obese people don't exercise or watch what they eat. We could also do the correlation-is-not-causation dance as well.

We shouldn't pay for the health costs of anyone with federal dollars! What part is hard to understand! We used to not do it, and this country got along just fine.

As for the obese, yes there are genetic predispositions.* But most are through the fault of no one but the obese person.

*I saw a doctor at a health care conference at the University of Rochester Med School talk about how doctors are more apt to essentially claim that the patient is pre-disposed. This allows the person to undergo more treatment which allows the doctors to get more money. The referral process is out of control. So don't get suckered into believing that a good percentage of obese Americans are due to genetics. Look at the historical data. Genes mutated over the past 30-40 years?!??! Of course not. The numbers are cooked.

So yes, most Americans are fat because they do little to no exercise and don't watch what they eat. Simply, they consume more calories than necessary.

Got it now - you're actually against universal health care based on fundamental libertarian-capitalist principles, and not using fat people as a convenient scapegoat. Glad we cleared that up.

I don't think anyone has a reasonable answer to that problem.

Overeating is just as sinful as gambling. And we don't pay for a gambler's unfortunate results (losing $$$), do we? No, of course not. Why? Because it just encourages the behavior.

The answer is simple: do nothing. Personal responsibility needs to be restored.

I'm tired of my tax money being used to fund the obese in some states. Alabama for one, next is Mississippi

I wonder who these states voted for? next on the list, west virginia.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Mississippi's still king of cellulite, but an ominous tide is rolling toward the Medicare doctors in neighboring Alabama: obese baby boomers.

Non-sequitur. You can eat as much as want and still not want to rely on public assistance.

I like education and learning. I went to college and refused to take federal aid, opting for private loans.

of course, I know nothing of what I write about,

just like the yellers at the town hall "meetings"

but again, why am I paying for the obese? isn't being obese a moral hazard and a multitude of health related problems. why are these obese people accepting socialist healthcare and not rejecting it?

I don't think you understand. Being obese isn't the moral hazard issue. It's the public aid that creates a moral hazard problem.

what? I was replying sort of to why do I have to pay for the healthcare of people who are obese and have obesity related problems. isn't being obese a personal responsibility. either stop eating fatty foods or you'll have a heart attack. or as a broardway play once said, Take Human Bites! slap.

isn't this one of the core anger points at the town hall meetings? they don't want to pay for someone else??

Eff them, I's gots mys owns.

well I'm paying for fatty grandma.

I really hate typing long posts.

Doing nothing, essentially maintaining the status quo, doesn't seem like it would fix anything.

I'm not really sure how good of a point that is, given how there are rally no numbers or stats to back up this wild claim.

More than likely, drug addicts and criminals get medical care whenever they want it anyway; they go to an ER when they want, get care and then never pay. Why would they? In the end, we all pay for it anyway through higher premiums and the shifting of costs from non-paying to paying patients.

Yeah, that's what most of the idiots arguing over this don't seem to understand. We are ALREADY paying for lots of uninsured people, and nevertheless you have people not getting anywhere near the health care they need, and health care costs just keep going up and up. Something needs to be done. Whether this is the thing...well, I doubt it, but that's politicians for you.

The reality is to control costs we need to cut end-of-life care to the elderly, where we keep dying people alive for an extra year or two at the cost of hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dollars. But that will NEVER happen because the elderly are a huge unified voting bloc, and the elderly want young people to go bankrupt keeping them alive as long as possible.

Who the fuck are you to say who should live and die? That extra year or two to spend with children and grandchildren has value for some people who aren't soulless robots like you.

Who the fuck are you to say who has to pay for this and who doesn't? Health Care doesn't grow on trees you self-righteous douche.

I'm their funder you idiot. How are unemployed people going to financially contribute to this? Hmm... I'm fascinated.

Oh don't get me wrong, old people should be able to stay alive artificially as long as they want as long as they/their families can pay for their care. But I do believe it's wrong to direct tax dollars to them when it could be better spent elsewhere.

That sounds like a good argument against government health care.

I don't know if you're trying to say that Obama's health care argument is misguided, or that the Wall Street Journal is a terrible newspaper. I would suggest the latter if they assume with zero research that everyone who makes more than $50,000 can afford health care. I know far, far too many people making that much who simply cannot.

If you make $50,000 a year, you CAN afford some level of health insurance. Unless, of course, you're spending too much money eating out, going to shows, bars, clubs, or living in an apartment in NYC that is too expensive for you.

I know people who can afford health insurance but choose not to pay for it.

Just for the record the WSJ is one of the best non-PC papers out there.

(not politically correct = truth)

Unless the only reason you make 50k a year is because of proximity, and losing that proximity dropped you further in wages.

The city has a need for middle class workers too. How far away do you think someone will come for 50k in a city where 100k+ is the norm?

Just for the record the reporting in the WSJ is pretty good but the editorial page is little more than a constant parade of easily debunked conservative distortions, half-truths and full-out lies. Where did the facts you quoted appear?

It's on like Donkey Kong now.

Some of us Real American Citizens are behind you one hundred percent Mr. President.

Why isn't there more focus on the economy, jobs and Afghanistan right now?

"Of the 46 million uninsured,

9.7 million are not U.S. citizens;

17.6 million have annual incomes of more than $50,000;

14 million already qualify for Medicaid or other programs.

That leaves less than five million people truly uncovered out of a population of 307 million. Americans don't believe this problem—serious but correctable—justifies the radical shift Mr. Obama offers."

-From the Wall Street Journal.

Rupert Murdoch's WSJ -- I'm sure it's a very objective source.

Um, you *do* know how much health insurance costs, or I assume you are a young one still milking your parents' plan?

Your math is wrong, because you conveniently left out whether those uninsured people making 50K would be able to afford healthcare.

Do a little bit of research. A 30-year-old nonsmoker single male in New York with a basic 50K job that doesn't cover him, he can get "Indemnity" coverage on his own for $150 that doesn't cover doctor's visits, no specialists, no prescriptions, no preventative care (it's like having no insurance, except for severe catastrophe). The cheapest HMO he's eligible for costs $470/month, but it doesn't cover doctor's office visits or preventative care.

The cheapest HMO that includes simple doctor's visits and preventative checkups costs nearly $790/month. Repeat: $790 per month.

So, please explain to all of us how an uninsured person who makes $50K can afford an almost $800/month HMO. You read the WSJ, you should be good with numbers, right? We're all ears.

Yes, I do know how much it costs. Your assumptions & exaggerations are hilarious!

Obama still hasn't explained how this will be paid for. Neither has anyone else touting the bill.

My employer pays 65% of the cost. I opted for full coverage where I can go to ANY doctor, so instead of paying about $50 a month like some of my colleagues, my cost is about $200 a month. This includes dental.

If I wanted Blue Cross and didn't have an employer covering most of the cost, I probably couldn't afford it. However, there are cheaper options out there than those you've listed.

The important statistics are that 9.7 million of the 46.3 million are not U.S. citizens and 14 million already qualify for benefits, so there is some lying in the numbers by the Democrats.

Medicare is going broke, but keeping the people that built this nation and raised our parents, alive and healthy is the right thing to do.

However, passing this bill will cause our nation to go in the direction it was headed after Bear Stearns was not bailed out. Do you realize how close we came to total financial disaster less than 1 year ago?

it sounds like you must do your research. i recently purchased a temporary plan for my wife. she just completed her masters and her coverage through school ran out at the end of august. she started a job on september 1, but the bennys don't kick in for 3 months. her plan, though basic, covers her for 3 months at a cost of $198 per month.

i can buy a basic package for myself, a 30 year old male SMOKER, starting at around $135 per month. exaggeration gets you nowhere.

go to ehealthinsurance.com for quotes.

I got a simple quote from your link. Yeah, it's $100/month... with a $2,500 deductible, and they don't pay a cent until that's met.

So it works out to $933/month for 3 months, should the need for care arise. And there's a ton of shit that isn't covered. It doesn't cover a physical or a GYN. It doesn't cover any maternity-related items.

This particular plan didn't have coinsurance, but many of the other results did, at either 20% or 50%.

(Obviously this was just one example. The system returned 101 results and I cannot review them all in detail.)

the fact of the matter is that there are good plans that can be had for the $350-$400 per month range. much less than what was pushed off above as truth, where realitycheck said the most basic plan $750 per month (a gross exaggeration, much like a lot of the crap that is being said about health care). for short term needs (ie if you lose your job or whatever), these basic plans should be more than enough until you can get yourself back on your feet.

I do agree that coverage is outrageously expensive but there are far better things that can be done to bring costs down. A federal take-over of the system is not one of them. Since when did the federal government do anything more cheaply and efficiently anyway? This isn't about health care, it's about an increasingly intrusive government looking to take yet more control of our lives.

A 'federal takeover of the system' is not what's being proposed.

Medicare and Medicaid seem to work well and is a boon to people who need the coverage as they get older. These are government programs. Are the plans subject to corruption? Sure they are, but they do serve the public and the corruption has to be fought.

The fact that Medicare is a government program means that politicians will never ever clean up the corruption because they still want the fraudsters' votes. Government welfare programs are inherently flawed that way because they will always be used to buy votes. Medicare is going broke btw.

This shouldn't just apply to those with no health insurance. It should apply to all of us as a supplement or in case you lose coverage if you lose your job.

Far more than 50 Million people have healthcare coverage that if they were to fall ill, it wouldn't be enough to cover all of their bills. Deductibles alone make many file for bankruptcy (Healthcare costs being the #1 reason to file). If you become sick and are unable to work, depending on your work situation, you may even lose the coverage you have.

What Obama proposes is a good start, but doesn't go far enough. But even I see that there isn't the political will to push for even greater reform.