Obama on Path Ahead for HCR ("I don't know how this plays politically, but I know it's right.")

[kpete]

Source: TIME Magazine


Excerpts: Obama on Path Ahead for Health Reform

March 3, 2010

"At stake right now is not just our ability to solve this problem, but our ability to solve any problem. The American people want to know if it's still possible for Washington to look out for their interests and their future. They are waiting for us to act. They are waiting for us to lead. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. I don't know how this plays politically, but I know it's right. And so I ask Congress to finish its work, and I look forward to signing this reform into law."

**********

"I don't believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America. I believe it's time to give the American people more control over their own health insurance. I don't believe we can afford to leave life-and-death decisions about health care to the discretion of insurance company executives alone. I believe that doctors and nurses like the ones in this room should be free to decide what's best for their patients.

***

“So this is our proposal. This is where we've ended up. It's an approach that has been debated and changed and I believe improved over the last year. It incorporates the best ideas from Democrats and Republicans – including some of the ideas that Republicans offered during the health care summit, like funding state grants on medical malpractice reform and curbing waste, fraud, and abuse in the health care system. My proposal also gets rid of many of the provisions that had no place in health care reform – provisions that were more about winning individual votes in Congress than improving health care for all Americans.”

***

“At stake right now is not just our ability to solve this problem, but our ability to solve any problem. The American people want to know if it's still possible for Washington to look out for their interests and their future. They are waiting for us to act. They are waiting for us to lead. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. I don't know how this plays politically, but I know it's right. And so I ask Congress to finish its work, and I look forward to signing this reform into law.”

Read more: http://thepage.time.com/excerpts-obama-on-path-ahead-for-health-reform/

[FLAprogressive]

1. If he really didn't care how things played politically and really cared about what's right

we would have seen single payer.

[Oregone]

3. My first thought

[Demeter]

4. +1000

I'd rather let it fester than give an unearned dime to an insurance company. And believe me, their dimes are all unearned.

[WriteDown]

5. Exactly, but mandated insurance is just as good.

:eyes:

[Enrique]

6. yep

:thumbsup:

[Dawgs]

7. And, how exactly would he get single payer passed? You know he's not king, right?

Shit, we can't even find 35+ Democrats out of 58 to support a weak public option.

[kristopher]

13. You push the fucking numbers - that's how.

Again and again and again, you meet objections with the numbers showing what is best. The people already support it and if the office of the President kept hammering the numbers the lobbying power of the insurance and medical industries in congress would be neutralized.

I've been a strong Obama supporter; but I'm done. After adopting the Republican energy policy and now the Republican platform (1994) on health care reform - I'm done.

[Mithreal]

15. The numbers posted by the DU'er you responded to are a farce.

[Mithreal]

14. Excuses and not even fact based.

http://whipcongress.com/

Several Senators that have not signed on Bennet's letter and won't sign or make an official statement without the details of that option on the table.

We had 59 votes, right(?), for medicare buy in which was a form of public option until Obama blew it up and pressured Reid to cave to Lieberman. I talked for 30 minutes, no exaggeration, to my one Senator's CoS last week and she is in Senate leadership. President Obama flexes his muscle in national and state politics and also claims impotence when it suits his messaging squad. All pathetic excuses should be exposed. The President is head of the party and he is pushing it to the right.

[Iowa]

28. Nonsense...

Obama got exactly what he wanted: a bill that institutionalizes corporate control of our fucked-up health care system... a bill that not only props up the status-quo, but places it on steroids.

To suggest that he wanted single-payer, but was thwarted by the Senate, is absolutely ridiculous.

[icee]

8. Exactly. Worst case scenario, we get no insurance. Best case

scenario, we get mandated insurance that will make you think you have arrived in hell.

[kristopher]

9. ...neither practical nor realistic."

Quote: "On one end of the spectrum, there are some who have suggested scrapping our system of private insurance and replacing it with government-run health care. Though many other countries have such a system, in America it would be neither practical nor realistic."

What a crock of horseshit. This proposal is a direct siphon hose into the treasury on behalf of the insurance and medical industries.

[Mithreal]

10. +1

[NJmaverick]

12. Theres is a HUGE difference between politics and what is possible

[Mithreal]

16. Omg, that is rich.

[NJmaverick]

18. For some reason your post reminded me of this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7832266

[Mithreal]

20. Since you asked.

In the past week, what I have done:

1. Participated in the debate online.
2. Numerous calls to my representatives in DC and state.
3. Spent 30 minutes, no exaggeration there, persuading a member of Senate leadership Chief of Staff to sign the Bennet letter and deliver a strong comprehensive public option available to everyone.
4. Went to my state's capitol in olympia, visited offices of all three of my state reps.
5. Participated in discussions with the public over transitioning WA state's worst polluting power plant while protecting the local community and larger environment.
6. Marched with the Sierra club.
7. Talked with candidates and cast a vote for County treasurer.
8. Attended a second local Dem meeting and explained my position publicly on the importance of Dems becoming aggressive Progressives.
9. Talked with a high level union organizer about creating a more jobs-focused legislature and how we go about restoring this country and taking back our party.
Many other minor actions too small to list.

Yeah, I am just one of those complainers. Wouldn't it be comforting if you were right?

[frylock]

25. beat. down.

great response. that one has nothing to offer but lame-ass excuses and apologies.

[Barbara2423]

30. Democrats Can't Gather the Votes for a Public Option

Single payer is out of the question.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. A solid, very good speech...

A call to arms for all of us.

K&R

[mvd]

17. Hi, Peggy

When the President says "they are waiting for us to act. They are waiting for us to lead," I'm thinking, that's what I've been saying all along! In the polls, people may say they want bipartisanship, but leadership and action is what will lead to a better situation for our Party. People respect it. I say pass the Senate bill and then make changes through reconciliation, including a strong public option. If the President doesn't push for changes, that will be disappointing - because the bill is inadequate in the long term at improving care. :hi:

[old mark]

27. Peg, whenever I get mad at him, he gives another speech like this one

and I feel better.
I hope this thing passes. I know there is strong er support for the public option than we are told, just emailed my Senator (Casey) thanking him for supporting it.
Not a good bill but a start.

mark

[ArcticFox]

11. Not engendering a lot of hope for beneficial change

[nodehopper]

19. there is no need for single payer and no problem with a mandate

as long as it is HEAVILY regulated. I live in the Netherlands now, where the health insurance system is organized exactly like that: it is compulsory to buy individual insurance from one of the 4 private insurance companies. The government REGULATES them so that they have to provide an identical "basic" package to EVERYONE, which, basically, includes everything (including all prescriptions and unlimited mental health care) except most dental care and alternative medicine, both of which can be purchased with upgraded packages. Everyone pays about 90 EU/month and everyone has a deductible of 150 EU/year. That's it. Everything else is covered. This is what the insurance companies are terrified of American people knowing, and that's why they make the strawman of single payer systems like NHS: the problem isn't lack of single payer, the problem is lack of regulation and oversight.

Oh, and the main reason I moved to Europe was because I could no longer deal with American "healthcare" and was downright terrified of the system after I had a child.

[mvd]

21. True. Still, my preference is single payer or..

a pool set up as they have in France. Single payer has a lot of cost advantages, especially with our super bloated administrative costs here. Now that you mention dental care, that is something I haven't heard addressed enough. It can get hugely expensive, and insurance does an especially poor job of covering it. I know first hand how important getting affordable dental care is.

[nodehopper]

22. I agree with you

Practically and ethically I think single payer is the best way to go. But what I have been thinking since I moved here, The Dutch health care system is an existing, functioning testament to the fact that all of the "complicated" high-level negotiations over "health care reform" in the US are just a huge pile of BS. The politicians are using some kind of outdated "red scare" to make sure that the US never has a government-run single-payer system like the NHS. But of course the real reason is that the politicians are bought and paid for by the HMOs, which run for profit, and now, thanks to SCOTUS, in some escalating loop from hell, they will be able to invest tons of money into "electing" politicians that will ensure greater and greater profit margins.

All the US would have to do to get the "Dutch" kind of model implemented would be to regulate the insurance companies. No boogeyman of the "government running healthcare," no phobias about socialism, no new insurance companies, no new agencies, just regulation: everyone has to buy a policy, and the basic policy has to cost the same reasonable amount, and cover everyone in the same way. And the public would love it--Government Protects People From Bloodsuckers! Obama Reigns In Insurance Companies! People could have their Aetna or Blue Cross or whatever, they would just all pay something like $150/month, and never worry about copays or preexisting conditions or annual or lifetime spending caps or any of that BS.

There are systems that function well that fall that are neither the NHS nor the American horrorshow. It's just that "socialism" makes for a good scarecrow, and is better for obfuscating that the single, the ONLY reason that there is no "reform" happening is that both health care lobbies and politicians prioritize HMO profits, even as they pathetically try to do some weak public impression management. We should be asking why is the American government unwilling to regulate the health care industry on the level of basic consumer protection? Well, because the more Aetna and BCBS make, the more money they can put into politicians' pockets, of course! Especially now! Thank you, SCOTUS!

[mvd]

24. Thanks for the info.

I definitely think the Dutch system could be a winner politically, as could a Medicare For All approach.

[LuckyLib]

29. This is it in a nutshell. Keep folks' eyes focused over there (the evils of a public option)

so they don't tamper with the real ripoff already in place:

So well said . . .
"the real reason is that the politicians are bought and paid for by the HMOs, which run for profit, and now, thanks to SCOTUS, in some escalating loop from hell, they will be able to invest tons of money into "electing" politicians that will ensure greater and greater profit margins."

[Mithreal]

23. The chance that Dems or Regressives when they return to power

will sufficiently regulate is highly doubtful.

Agree with you on the facts.

[eridani]

31. It's like utlity companies. You can have them muncipally owned--

--or you can have private entities that are very strictly regulated. Either gets the job done. There is nothing resembling regulation in the Senate bill.

[happygoluckytoyou]

26. BIPARTISIAN..... YES..... both the LIBERALS and the PROGRESSIVES is ENOUGH!!!!