I think the speech was particularly effective for the misinformed mainstream.

Watching the event allowed a glimpse of what the Republican party has come to. Droves of angry greedy old white miserable douchebags opposing anything that resembles progress.

The speech was so good that Democrats in Congress are calling their medical lobbyists this morning, and demanding a raise.

Obama is a brilliant orator. Kari, thank you for printing the speech so that we may all read what was said. There was a whole lot said that I agree with, some that I don't understand and some that I find suspect, particularly the no addition to the deficit pledge.

I am also not very clear how he proposes to pay for this. taxes on high end plans offered by employers and unions would have to exceed $1750/month for families and $667/month for individuals before they were taxed. I doubt even Tri-Met or King County, WA offer plans that generous.

FOr the most part I am optimistic. No pre-ex clauses, no capping out and everyone must get health insurance. Also some promise to look into medical malpractice and needless defensive procedures caused by frivilous lawsuits.

I've been wondering. With Health Insurance for all could we:

1. Drop mandatory medical coverage on motor vehicle insurance
2. Drop Oregon mandatory uninsured/underinsured medical coverage from the above
3. Drop or lower medical coverage rates on renters and homeowners insurance

Just some thoughts.

Joshua Welch wrote:

"Droves of angry greedy old white miserable douchebags"

What a racist comment. No wonder you're a liberal.

Kurt Chapman wrote:

"I've been wondering. With Health Insurance for all could we:

1. Drop mandatory medical coverage on motor vehicle insurance
2. Drop Oregon mandatory uninsured/underinsured medical coverage from the above
3. Drop or lower medical coverage rates on renters and homeowners insurance

Just some thoughts."

And you can add to that 4. Drop Workmens Compensation

And the answer is NO, none of that will happen.

But all in all, in terms of changing the tone and restoring urgency, he did a masterful job.

YOU LIE!

I would like to publically condemn the statement last night at 6:15pm by Victoria Taft of KPAM 860am. This statement was that the government is like a gang and the only way to control it is to kill the leader. This statement needs to be brought on the national stage for all to see, I dont know much about how to get this out other than to ask you all for help in holding people that make threats to the President responsible.

There is no excuse for real or implied threats to the President's life or safety.

However, I would not be surprised to find that many so-called threats are actually fakes, just as the vandalism to the Democratic offices a few weeks ago in Colorado were found to have been done by a Democratic operative.

Joe White - workers' compensation is a no-fault coverage for injured workers. It covers those who become ill or injured in the course of employment. there are both treatment and disability paynment guidelines.

Immperfect as that system may be, it provides for the employee and is exclusive remedy with scheduled benefits, thus shielding the employer from tort liability in most cases.

Kurt,

I'm not suggesting it should be scrapped.

Just pointing out that the medical portion of WC, just like the auto insurance examples, these coverages potentially overlap, and are somewhat redundant when considered alongside 'universal health care'.

But we won't be offered any savings by streamlining them, I guarantee. That's not what the Democrats are all about.

Joe white:
"What a racist comment. No wonder you're a liberal."

C-mon Joe! Your either very stupid, delusional, or both. My comment referring to the whiteness of your party infers that few people of color choose your party because your party is filled with racists. If your a neo-nazi, have a confederate flag on your bedroom wall, or call black people niggers, chances are your voting Republican. If racism were a product you could bottle and sell, the GOP would own the market.

And the answer is NO, none of that will happen.

And Kurt Chapman and Joe White, is because of regressive swine like you and the corporate wing of the Democratic Party, who oppose a single-payer plan under which all four of those things WOULD happen. This is exactly what you want. We know it. You know it. And that about sums up why you are such a blight to humanity.

Kari, I agree with you on the manifest shortcomings of the speech. I'd like to hope Obama has moved the debate forward and I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised that he has. Unfortunately, his desire to not offend the wishes of the Chapmans and the Whites of this world, (and in reality the Wydens because although Obama's plan differs in significant details very much from Wyden's, he still is right on board with the wrong-headed idea the insurance companies must be given their blood money), means Bill McDonald is right. And I have no doubt the checks are in the mail.

Something will pass this year. But unless we and the Congressional Progressive Caucus manage to seize the day, Obama definitely is not going to go down in history as having been the FDR of health insurance and health care reform.

However, I would not be surprised to find that many so-called threats are actually fakes, just as the vandalism to the Democratic offices a few weeks ago in Colorado were found to have been done by a Democratic operative.

Once again Joe White lies because Joe White is mentally deranged. It turned out to be an anarchist who had done a small stint of paid hourly work to scam some bucks off the Democartic Party. He was opposed to both the Democratic and Republican Party and said so. But reality doesn't matter to freaks like Joe White, does it Joe?

Once again, Obama proved that he is a masterful orator (in front of teleprompter) and quite a salesman as well. He also demonstrated his comfort with dishonesty and willingness to knowingly mislead the American people, which is startling. The fact that he will stand there and tell the American people that a public option will not affect anyone who currently has and likes their private insurance and will not affect those on medicare, is a flat out lie, and he knows it. Many, many times, Obama the candidate and Obama the Senator said that if that he favors a single payer option and if the government could pass a public option, that he believes it could bring an end to the private insurance industry within 10-15 years. The entire purpose of the public option is not to increase competition, but to kill competition by ultimately creating one large, government monopoly. If he truly believed in competition, he would allow Americans to buy insurance across state lines from any of the 1300 insurance companies out there.
And as for Medicare...right now the only reason Medicare is "solvent" at all is because private insurance companies make up the difference in the shortfall between what Medicare pays and the actual expenses incurred by hospitals. Medicare only pays out about 80% of what is owed, and if we kill private insurance, we will effectively kill the mechanism that funds it....as private insurance companies start to go under, the funding crisis in Medicare will only grow.
These are not republican facts or democrat facts, these are just the facts...and Obama's ability and willingness to flat out lie on this issue, with such smug conviction, is truly shocking. He is the most disgraceful president, certainly of my lifetime (and that's a tough feat to pull off considering he had to beat out Carter for that)....and we simply cannot afford to have this guy in office...we're stuck with him till 2012, but after that he must go...and I think deep down inside, you all know it too.

JJ lives in fantasy land:

The entire purpose of the public option is not to increase competition, but to kill competition by ultimately creating one large, government monopoly.

No the entire purpose of a public option is to remove the unfair competitive advantages the predatory private insurance industry has (no need to recite the litany of those advantages here because an pig like JJ won't care). If the private insurance industry can't compete, than it is the economic law and for the good of our country they disappear.

And as for Medicare...right now the only reason Medicare is "solvent" at all is because private insurance companies make up the difference in the shortfall between what Medicare pays and the actual expenses incurred by hospitals.

Why don't you try to explain how insurance companies who have contract rates no higher than Medicare are making up the difference. The standard line of insurance companies is they want the government to remove the legal requirement that a hospital can't offer a private insurance company a lower contract rate than they offer Medicare, but you are too stupid to know that JJ. That includes the private Medicare Advantage plans that the carriers want to pay hospitals less than Medicare Part A and Part B if Congress will only allow them to do that. Now if you are talking about supplemental plans, that's because we don't have single-payer for which doctors and hospitals would be reimbursed for every patient, so they charge Medicare patients more than the Medicare rate to pay for uncovered patients under the view that many patients with Medicare can afford to pay a little more for a private wrapper policy.

You're deluded JJ.

Kari, here's the big disappointment with the Obama speech: A good leader has to reassure the middle while at the same time firing up the grassroots and organized activists who will push the Congress act, while doing more work to reassure the middle at the grassroots level. Obama focused on the middle, but failed to motivate those who will do the real work: A four year delay on the Exchange and no choice of the public option for most of us does not motivate.

I don't know about the best line, but the funniest was:

"I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period".

I think that means that he'll sign if it adds less than or more than ten cents, but not ten cents even.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Joshua Welch wrote:

"your party is filled with racists."

I believe it was a Democratic member of Congress who said of a recent Democratic VP , 'he has low Negro tolerance' (of course her own comments about white 'crackers' must be taken in context)

A recent Democratic President said in his book that a speech about 'white man's greed' inspired him to join the church where the speech was given. The same Democratic president referred to 'typical white' persons who react wrongly to others.

Then there was the Democratic 'dean' of the Senate who was on TV using the N word

Also we could talk about the Democratic Senator who referred to the black Presidential candidate as 'the first clean articulate black candidate'.

Or how bout the Democrat who was running for President as he said 'you can't go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts in my town unless you have a slight Indian accent'.

Or the Democratic Senator, who later held a Cabinet post, referring to Gandhi 'who ran a gas station in St Louis'.

My party filled with racists?

Did you mistakenly think I was a Democrat?

Re: Christopher's ravings: The context of the statement precluded a threat to the president, you dillweed.

"The context of the statement precluded a threat to the president, you dillweed."

OOh such high debate Vicky

I'm sure YOU have NEVER taken a statement out of context.

And Joe when the dixiecrat democrats abandoned the dems over civil rights (strom thurmond, Jesse Helms at al) what party did they flock to and what party welcomed them with open arms?)

Yeah.

An excellent speech and it accomplished what it needed to in terms of speaking directly to the public giving the facts, and effectively knocking down the intentional deceptions and distortions. The speech united and invigorated the Dems, and marginalized the Rs, calling them out on their cynical strategy of killing health care as a political strategy. And Joe Wilson was the graphic face of the hateful, rude, and divisive Republican Party.

So, Victoria,

What was the context that "precluded a threat to the president"? "Kill" can have several meanings, but as something one does to presidents, the denoted definition usually applies.

Mike wrote:

"when the dixiecrat democrats abandoned the dems over civil rights (strom thurmond, Jesse Helms at al) what party did they flock to and what party welcomed them with open arms?)"

Since the Republican Party voted in higher percentages to pass the Voting Rights Act as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I think you're fantasizing a bit about 'abandonment'.

Southern racists like Al Gore Sr, William Fulbright (Clinton's mentor), Robert Byrd all stayed in the Democratic party.

Victoria, an investigation by the Secret Service is appropriate here. Threats on the life of the president are a federal crime regardless of "context." A chat with your attorney would be in order. You might think it makes political hay, but it's wrong and punishable by statute. If you think it's fun and games to consider assassination then I guess it shows how far the GOP has sunk. I was there when the country lived through the last assassination and it was a terrible time for the country. If you can't run a talk show responsibly then it's time to find another occupation.

I suggest letting Joe White piss into the wind here, so to speak. Don't respond to him. Gawd knows he seems to have hours every day to post tedious stuff. I always thought it was only public employees fucking off at their desks who could do this :-)

jdw, I refrain from goading this particular troll as best I can, but this begs a response, being more than just an emotional outburst as is their wont.

He obviously did not closely read the salon.com article of July 2000 which he cites:

"Contacted in Warrenton, Va., the last black Republican senator, Edward W. Brooke of Massachusetts ... noted that the black Republicans' loyalty "is even more remarkable when you consider the fact that ... you have been far too often outright embarrassed by the policies, strategies and public pronouncements of some of our high-ranking Republican leaders and Republican officeholders."

For black and Hispanic voters, Brooke said, "Republican conservatism has come to mean opposition to civil rights ... to urban Americans, opposition to new programs and the dismantling of existing programs which have and would improve the quality of their lives."

So what happened to change things so drastically? The Republicans who supported the civil rights measures, according to Brinkley, were Rockefeller Republicans, and on their way out. The civil rights leadership of presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson had them supplanting Lincoln in the hearts of black voters. These were the men chasing Thurmond into the embrace of the GOP.

"I think I just lost the South," Johnson is said to have stated after he signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. True enough, the election of 1968 had white Southerners embracing Nixon and Wallace, with black Southerners running toward Hubert Humphrey, who delivered a fiery oration in support of civil rights at the Democratic National Convention in 1948."

Both parties are racist. Both parties are corporatist. Both parties are militarist.

Both parties are regressive and deluded. Enjoy your corporate health insurance.

Political parties are a reflection of the political realities of their time. They have a governing philosophy which attracts real people with their agenda. Dealing with real people getting down & dirty in pursuit of their goals can be disheartening if you were expecting an erudite and dispassionate debate, but you're the fool if it just makes you a bitter, angry nihilist.

"Southern racists like Al Gore Sr, William Fulbright (Clinton's mentor), Robert Byrd all stayed in the Democratic party."

When the supreme court handed down Brown Vs Board in 1954 Gore was one of 3 dems (LBJ was another) to refuse to sign the "southern manifesto" pledging resistance to desegregation efforts. Fulbright lost in 1974 to a more liberal democrat named Dale Bumpers

Also Joe read the whole article it points out that GOP polcies have changed a lot from those days.

Eagery awaiting the 10 posts in a half hr period I will likely see from you when I next check in at BO.

You are aware that Gore voted against the Civil Rights Act?

Repeating anecdotal evidence just proves your argument is bankrupt, Joe.

I have not heard the speech yet, I have read the text of it several times as well as the summary located at Whitehouse.gov. I am less then impressed.

First, the President did not aim high enough. The plan he proposed as he proposed it might work, but as it is the starting point for the negotiations to come, I know that the final result will be much less. It will be health care reform in name only. At best it will level me still uninsured and worst case it will leave me as an uninsured criminal.

Second, he did not draw the necessary line in the sand making a Robust Public Option a absolute requirement. Without it there is no reform. Yes there are other ways that reform could be accomplished without it, single-payer or a Swiss style highly regulated non-profit health insurance system come quickly to mind but they are neither included in his plan or in the existing bills.

Third, there are no real opportunities for cost savings, the for-profit Health Insurance Companies with their high salaries, robust fraud departments and ever increasing rates are still in control of the health care system. Preventive care only pencils out to an Insurance Company if they believe that they will still be the carrier when the savings are realized and with employer based coverage that is not likely to be the case. Mandates are an excuse to raise not reduce rates.

Finally, the 2013 implementation date is to far away, it needs to be January 2011 at the latest. That way it is up and operating before the 2012 Presidential elections. Otherwise there is a good chance that it will be repealed by a Republican President presiding over a Republican House and Senate. This scenario is more likely with a weak Health Care Reform Bill then with no bill at all. In the latter case the defeat can be laid at the feet of the Republicans and their DINO allies.

Speaking of the Blue Dog DINOs and other Industry Flacks in Congress if they do not want to support the party platform at least to the point of voting for closure, they need to booted out of the party.

Why is the word douchbag being used more and more? You are aware that it has a reference point to the female, the feminine? Choose another reference point next time you try to express what you consider to be penultimate disgust with an obscenity passing for human, please.

And leave our vaginas OUT of it.

... and, while yer at it, lay off the lowly dill too. It's a fine little herb.

Erm. But I'm serious about that business you men seem to have about selecting invective that is about the femme. Stop, please. Choose otherwise. See what fun you can have with that.

"Second, he did not draw the necessary line in the sand making a Robust Public Option a absolute requirement. Without it there is no reform."

OK, suppose by any definition the bill which comes out of conference committee has 'a Robust Public Option " available to people who don't already have insurance through their employer / people on the low end of the income scale but not covered by Medicaid for whatever reason / people who have been dropped for whatever reason, reached a lifetime or yearly cap, can't get coverage because of "pre-existing condition". But none of that goes into effect until 2013 ( in some versions of the bill). How does that help people in the next year?

Majority Whip Cong. Clyburn was interviewed on the Ed Schultz show several days ago. He said that 2013 date is a major concern to him. He is afraid that people who need reform now (can't afford the increased premiums, or a company which claims someone in their 40s didn't report a high school medical condition (acne, sports injury) and therefore are running a "pre-existing condition" scam, people dropped when they get sick etc.) are not going to be excited about re-electing a member who voted for a bill which doesn't take effect for 2 more election cycles.

Can we talk about that? Or why places like Mayo Clinic have a model for health care delivery which is more effective than private practice doctors each with their own offices and billing depts.---is fee for service really better than salaried doctors?

Or how about the Swiss system (which I have heard Howard Dean talking about) where there is private insurance, private doctors, BUT insurance is treated like a public utility and heavily regulated?

On a topic as complex as this, I just don't believe a slogan like Robust Public Option should be seen as the answer to everything.

LT

“OK, suppose by any definition the bill which comes out of conference committee has 'a Robust Public Option " available to people who don't already have insurance through their employer… can't get coverage because of "pre-existing condition". But none of that goes into effect until 2013 ( in some versions of the bill). How does that help people in the next year?”

It doesn’t! Waiting till 2013 is not acceptable both for the reason you said and for the pragmatic political reality that in 2012 President Obama may not be in office and the Republicans may control both Houses of Congress in which case it will be repealed before it goes in effect. As I stated in my earlier posting it needs a January 2011 effective date. As to Congressman Clyburn’s observation he is right on the money. What is missing from the public polling data is why the President’s numbers on health care are dropping, I think he is losing support more from individuals like my self who feel that he is not going far enough then from those on the right who feel he is going to far. The vocal folks at the town halls never supported the proposal in the first place.

As to the Swiss option, in my view that would be an acceptable alternative to a Robust Public Option but it is not on the table at this time. As for the Mayo Clinic model, it is an excellent approach but it requires a different health insurance model then what we have now. Preventive care only pencils out to an Insurance Company if they believe that they will still be the insurance carrier for the patient when the savings are realized.

I am an advocate of a single-payer system; it offers the greatest direct and indirect savings, the best platform for treatment reform and would eliminate cost shifting. But it was dropped from the debate even before the debate started. I see a Robust Public Option as a short term compromise on the road to true reform. The only part of the proposal that will get us there.

The rest is relatively meaningless window dressing. I have great confidence in the Health Insurance Industry’s ability work around any of the proposed regulations. Yes they will take people with pre existing conditions but at rates 2 to 3 times the existing rates if not directly then indirectly by tripling their base rate then giving a discount to long term policy holders. As to the rescission problem you outlined, the President’s proposal already exempts fraud from the no cancelation regulations and fraud is how the Insurance Company’s consider incomplete applications (i.e. leaving childhood acne off the application).

Joe White:

There is no excuse for real or implied threats to the President's life or safety.

However, I would not be surprised to find that many so-called threats are actually fakes

Bob T:

Sure they are, but even if the percentage is the same that's still a four or five fold increase in the number of real threats (I heard an interview last week with the author of a new book on the Secret Service, and he mentioned this increase in threats and I think it's four or five times the usual). And the Secret Service has not been increased to match this.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Mike:

when the dixiecrat democrats abandoned the dems over civil rights (strom thurmond, Jesse Helms at al) what party did they flock to and what party welcomed them with open arms?)

Bob T:

There's a myth that these people went to the Repubs because the Repubs were more in sync with them or were the real racist party. Nonsense. Strom Thurmond himself had stated that the main or only real draw was the Republicans' traditional (real or imagined) states-centric view of authority, and that the Dixiecrat types would have a better chance of holding on to their regionalist powers over blacks by joining a party that put states rights over national rights. Nothing to do with Repub racism (because the Dems were the very racist party up to that point, and quite racist in local politics for decades afterwards).

Bob Tiernan Portland

Ed Bickford wrote:

"Repeating anecdotal evidence just proves your argument is bankrupt, Joe"

Ed, saying that a Congressman voted for or against a certain bill is not 'anecdotal evidence'.

If you don't believe me, look it up, friend.

Bob T wrote:

"that's still a four or five fold increase in the number of real threats"

Any real threat should be investigated and prosecuted, IMHO.

I have zero tolerance for this kind of thing.

David from Eugene wrote:

"I am an advocate of a single-payer system; it .....would eliminate cost shifting."

No, it IS cost shifting.

If I am uninsured, and don't want to buy insurance (and there are millions of 20-something and 30-something singles who think they don't need it and don't want to pay for it because they are young and healthy), then forcing me to pay for insurance anyway, IS cost shifting.

If I have low price-high deductible catastrophic insurance and am willing to pay my incidentals out of pocket or out of my HSA/MSA account(and there are lots of self employed people who do just that), then forcing me to pay for first dollar coverage (single payer) , IS cost shifting.

rw wrote:

"You are aware that it has a reference point to the female, the feminine?"

Yes, you are correct. Joshua Welch's statement was not only racist, it was sexist as well.

I could also mention it was ageist.

That's Joshua Welch, with the liberal triple play.

I've heard both Obama and also Robert Reich (in a youtube video) say that the public option will pay for itself from premiums. No subsidies.

If that's the case, how does the public option help those that really need it: the millions of low-income workers and their families who make too much to qualify for Medicaid (if one grosses minimum wage x 40 hours per week then that's too high to qualfy for Medicaid), but are living paycheck-to-paycheck? And who also happen to work at low-wage jobs with no benefits (most jobs that don't offer benefits are low-wage). The premium for the public option will probably be affordable in comparison to a private policy but even at a couple hundred to three hundred dollars per month there are millions of Americans who simply cannot afford it.

A tax credit is a subsidy, but even if they didn't call it a subsidy and brought that into play the credit would have minimal benefit for low-income, full-time workers.

The public option as it's currently envisioned doesn't help the people who need it most! Unless I'm missing something...

As it says in one of the lines Kari Chisolm quoted from Obama's speech: "I will not back down on the prinicple that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice."

How does the government guarantee the choice will be affordable without subsidizing it? How does the government subsidize it without adding "one dime" to the deficit- is it the fees to be charged on high-end coverage that will subsidize the public-option for those who can't afford the public-option premium?

So, seems to me pretty obvious that there will have to be some subsidies available in order to make this public option available to the poorest wage-earners who are employed full-time. If that's the case, why the talk about the public-option being a stand-alone program?

These are Robert Reich's words, from the youtube video: "The public plan would not be subsidized by the government."

How can this be?

Dear Pal Joey: I was not targeting the entire statement. Only the primary word that served as the focal point invective: douchebag. You resort often to demeaning statements... can't stop a blogger from the entertainment value of ad hominem and bad manners. However, can ask you to work on offending one another using your own gender instead of ALWAYS resorting to mine as your fondest expression of low.

Try nutsack or schmeckel, or... something penile.

Stephen Amy wrote:

"I've heard both Obama and also Robert Reich (in a youtube video) say......."

What they say is basically a sales pitch.

As you've noted, it defies common sense.

Camille Paglia, a noted liberal and Obama supporter, asked "Who is naive enough to believe that Obama's plan would be deficit-neutral? Or that major cuts could be achieved without drastic rationing?"

I am in a rictus of horror: I have to agree with Joe. Obama needs to knock off that bullshit about revenue-neutral overhaul on the system.

It just ain't gonna be so.

Kurt Chapman thinks we should drop medical coverage (personal injury protection in Oregon), uninsured motorist coverage, workmen's compensation coverage and medical coverage on homeowners insurance.

With the exception of medical coverage on homeowners policies, all the other coverages provide more than just medical costs.

For example, who will pay lost wages if workmen's comp is gone?

<h2>Actually Willard, go back and read my posts. I defended workers compensation as it currently exists from both the employee and employer's standpoint. Further, uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage is ALL about medical coverage here in Oregon. It is also a potentially unconstitutional regulatory edict not supported by any legislative action. It is mandatory and would be duplicative should mandatory coverage be passed at the federal level. Ditto homeowners, motorcycle, ATV and other like plans that include provisions for medical payments.</h2>