The American Spectator : Time to Get Out the Iron

Text Size

Time to Get Out the Iron

By Philip Klein on 9.10.09 @ 6:09AM

President Obama’s health care speech papered over the details that have plagued his health care effort for months.

At one point during his health care speech to a joint session of Congress, President Obama drew cackles for remarking that “there remain some significant details to be ironed out.”

In a much-hyped speech aimed at rejuvenating his health care push, Obama delivered a message that was strikingly similar to the one that has failed to resonate with the American people thus far. The reason is that while Obama can paper over political and policy realities by speaking in broad strokes, it’s always the specifics that have caused him problems.

As he has done before, Obama pledged to veto any bill that added to the deficit. But despite that commitment, the Congressional Budget Office has ruled that the House Democrats’ health care legislation would create $230 billion in deficits over ten years.

Obama again touted the cost-saving potential of preventive care and an independent Medicare commission, but the CBO has determined that preventive measures would actually increase health care costs and that a commission would have a negligible impact on government spending.

Back in May, President Obama went before the American Medical Association and declared, “no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.” Last night, Obama offered a more nuanced pledge that “nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.” While his revised statement may be more accurate, it is no less disingenuous.

Regardless of whether legislation specifically requires that Americans give up their coverage, there are still many changes to the system that could cause some people to lose it anyway. For instance, one provision Obama backed last night — to tax expensive health plans — is explicitly aimed at encouraging employers to drop benefit-rich policies in hopes that it would help rein in medical spending.

At one point last night, Obama said that, “The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes.” But at another point of his speech, Obama gave an unwavering endorsement of a requirement that individuals either purchase health insurance, or pay a tax.

Under the version of the mandate proposed by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, individuals would face a tax of at least $750 if they do not purchase health coverage. And while his proposal would provide subsidies to lower-income Americans, those subsidies would stop at 300 percent of the federal poverty level. What that means is that a family of four with a household income above $66,150 would face a tax of $3,800 if they do not obtain health insurance, while an individual with income above $32,490 would face a tax of $950.

This is a problem that Obama himself noted when he was campaigning against Hillary Clinton back when he opposed mandates. “In some cases, there are people who are paying fines and still can’t afford it, so now they’re worse off than they were,” candidate Obama said during a February 2008 debate, referring to conditions under a similar mandate in Massachusetts. “They don’t have health insurance and they’re paying a fine.”

During his speech, Obama advocated the creation of a plan to be offered on a government-run insurance exchange that would be “administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare.” He said that the reason we need such an option is that, “by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers.”

Yet later in the same speech, he argued that he could pay for most of his proposal with cuts to Medicare that would not have any impact on benefits to seniors. The reason, he explained, is that we could save money by reducing “the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud…” in Medicare — the very government-run program he touts as a model for the creation of a new government-run program.

While acknowledging that the new plan would be run by the government, Obama tried to argue that it wouldn’t be subsidized by taxpayers, but only funded by the premiums it collects. However, any new government plan would require taxpayer money to fund start-up costs, and should it run into financial trouble, it’s hard to believe that the lawmakers would allow it to fail without pumping taxpayer money into it, just as they did in the cases of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and those were allegedly private companies).

Though he made the case for the government plan, he also laid the groundwork for an eventual retreat. “It is only one part of my plan,” Obama said of the government option. “To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end — and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.” He thus began the task of selling liberals on the idea of accepting alternatives such as the creation of nonprofit co-ops, but to this point the left has been firmly opposed to such compromises. The success of Obama’s health care effort will likely hinge on his ability to convince his ideological allies to accept less.

While last night’s address may earn Obama a few days of positive media coverage and boost the spirits of Democrats on Capitol Hill in the short-term, these pesky details will continue to weigh on his chances of passing major health care legislation.

About the Author

Philip Klein is The American Spectator’s Washington correspondent. You can follow him on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/Philipaklein

Letter to the Editor View all comments (163) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Big J| 9.10.09 @ 6:58AM

The whole pretext of Obama's speech was a joke.

First of all, HE doesn't HAVE a plan for "health care reform". The House and the Senate have "plans" (I think around 6 or 7 of them).

Secondly, he obviously hasn't read any of them. Mr. President, I'd like to remind you that the "misinformation" you speak of was brought to the town hall meetings by constituents IN BLACK AND WHITE.

Were it not so serious, I would consider last night's speech a 45 minute stand up comedy act.

This morning, I'm torn between 3 of the funniest lines I heard:

"I will veto any bill that is not deficit neutral"

"The time for bickering and game playing is over"
(This one sounded eerily like the threats from my dad on road trips when he'd had enough of me and my little brother bantering back and forth in the back seat. A little scary coming from the president, but in the right light, downright funny!)

I think his comment about tort reform took the cake. "Pilot programs, to see if it works"??? Are you freaking kidding me? Check us out down here in Texas. We have done it, and I've got news for you - it works.

That's why he saved that line for last - it was the grand daddy of all punchlines.

Michael L. Hauschild| 9.10.09 @ 7:43AM

Sum up the whole speech with four words, "Death panels" and "You lie."

galen| 9.10.09 @ 7:49AM

I was wrong he did not resign as I'd hoped. But he gave another of his Signfeld speeches that said nothing. He blew it.

jd| 9.10.09 @ 7:56AM

To hell with Senate protocol. I'm all for calling a spade a spade. Obama IS a liar.

RustyG| 9.10.09 @ 7:58AM

Big J says "Were it not so serious, I would consider last night's speech a 45 minute stand up comedy act."

The opening act was the funniest. I was laughing my rear off just looking at the smiling faces of Biden and Pelosi. They looked like comedic figures without even speaking.

Ivan Brandt| 9.10.09 @ 8:14AM

The president says “nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have", but unfortunately it is just a matter of dollars and cents to your employer. If a company can save money in this down economy then they will do it.

The average cost of family health insurance coverage is roughly $1000 per month for family coverage, and your employer is picking up roughly 75% of that cost. So the employer will have a choice, either pay $750 per month to offer you health care insurance or pay an 8% payroll penalty to the government. If you make less than $9375 per month (that’s $750 divided by 8%), it will be cheaper for your employer to let the government take over your health care coverage. So families making less than $112,500 per year can expect to be on the Obamacare plan.

For those with just individual coverage the cut off point will be roughly $45,000 per year, since the average individual plan costs $400 per month

Williams| 9.10.09 @ 8:16AM

It just so happened that before I listened to Obama's speech last night I had to visit my physician earlier in the day. What had started as a simple cold had sunk into my chest, and I knew I needed medicine. The doctor immediately suspected strep throat; a simple swab would confirm it.

However, I'm a Medicare patient, and Medicare rules do not allow such tests in a doctor's office. I would have to go to a lab. I said, "Forget it. Do the test and I'll pay." The test was positive, antibiotics were prescribed and I hope I'm on the mend.

Here is an example of perhaps one of the simplest medical situations made more complicated and more expensive by silly Medicare rules. We should all beware of what this administration wants to do to health care in this country.

Theresa| 9.10.09 @ 8:19AM

-------------------
Oh my goodness, as I have said in a previous posting he talks like some slippery salesman selling snake oil to a bunch of dunces. See he misses the point. Most of the people in that chamber are dunces - but the American people are not. Great going prez - let me see what your right hand is doing while you are lying to us with the left.

Hippocrates| 9.10.09 @ 8:19AM

I'm quite surprised that my colleague Dr. Ezekiel "Der Weiss Angel" Emanuel was not there in the Senate gallery last evening, nodding his approval for every golden word of President Obama. This idea of eliminating healthcare coverage for the undesireables: the elderly, the cripples and the infants in the name of "cost savings" is absolutely brilliant. Wonder why no other leader has thought of that before?

Lisa| 9.10.09 @ 8:33AM

Obama stated that Americans were listening to lies. He is such a dumbass. No, we just read the reform bill Mr. bag of dog shit. We are bigger than they are. When are we going to stand up to them cheating low lifes. We have got to vote every one of those people out. Go to you tube and watch the video- Robert Welch speech 1974. Mr. Welch lists everything that is taking place in our govt.

Susan| 9.10.09 @ 8:36AM

A few critiques of baracs speech:

1. He used focus groups to determine appealing words for his teleprompter. He used safety and security, quality, saving and ted.

1. Safety and security from the federal government takeover of healthcare. The same group that didn't allow the FBI and CIA to communicate and 911 happened killing 3000 of America's best mind. This is what happens when government is in charge of safety and security.

2. Quality. Look at your 401K and the wreck that the democrats caused to get elected in 2008 pinning that debacle incorrectly on the republicans. maxine walters and barney frank told the bankers in 2003 to loan money to welfare recipients so they could buy houses. the welfare recipients unaccustomed to work defaulted on all of their loans causing the american people to loss 50% of their retirements. This debacle impacted the world-wide economy and frankly made america look bad for investment to the rest of the world. Thanks Democrats.

3. barac invoke ted kennedy the same guy who is a catholic who supports abortion unequivicolly with your tax-payer dollars. 10 commandments - though shall not kill mr kennedy. ted also left mary jo kopeeeki to drown in chapiquidick river. did he hurt her prior to driving her and her car into the river. maybe he did maybe he didn't.

4. barac talkings of savings and he talks of combing out $500 billion from medicare the insurance for seniors. He then goes onto say that he won't touch seniors medicare. double talking lies.

a public option means that someone else pays for a free ride by a non-productive.

john galt| 9.10.09 @ 8:43AM

Once they control your health care, they control you from cradle to grave. They already control banking, auto, insurance industries. Be afraid, very afraid, no good will come of this.

JP| 9.10.09 @ 8:43AM

This speech was a gimmick. Not able to rally the troops himself, the President used the platform of an address to the Joint Session of Congress. As I said earlier, this is a move of desperation. His speech was not focused on the public per se, but it was directed at his congressional allies and his base of Far Left activists. I imagine by the 30 minute mark most viewers were channel surfing.

This is his last chance. Pollsters will come out today or Friday and announce to the world that ObamaCare is now more popular than ever, and from there Reid and Pelosi can hammer out a deal quicktime and deliver it to the WH.

The only problem with this scenario is that voter disgust will not go away. Dissenters (whether Democrats or Republicans) will be branded fringe haters on the outliers of the mainstream. By doing this, Obama hopes to give his congressional collegues some breathing room. But, to do this the President will have to use up his last measure of political capital. If this passes, the Dems and the President will be at political war with about 55-60% of the voters.

Robert Rosencrans| 9.10.09 @ 8:47AM

Congressman Joe Wilson did the nation a favor and he need not apologize. During the speech Barack Obama referred to 30 million uninsured. Over the past few month a figure you heard bandied about was 42 to 47 million. The reason Barack Obama mentioned 30 million was that someone over at the White House must have learned some math and realized they had to drop the number which weakens their case but stands mathematical scrutiny from those who claim it included illegal aliens. Obama lies with aplomb not guile because he holds the public in disdain, considering the public full of unwashed masses not worthy of the truth because the unwashed masses are too stupid to see the rightfulness of the plan.

KevSeel| 9.10.09 @ 8:47AM

“by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits,..."

The above statement shows such a lack of basic economic principles that I've decided to give him the benefit of doubt. He can't possibly think that "overhead" could be eaten up by "profits." As if all businesses struggle when those pesky profits get in the way? This statement can only show his disdain for profits and capitalism on the whole.

Pat Spooner| 9.10.09 @ 8:47AM

Oblama strikes out again. He is so underqualified to be a leader, let alone the President of the United States. To say that he'll save billions from Medicare and Medicaid fraud really says something about government run healthcare doesn't it?

There is no burning crisis in healthcare that requires legislation like this be enacted in such a short period of time. Why should any hardworking Amercian Citizen and taxpayer support such foolishness?

Before Medicaid and Medicare how did the people survive with these same healthcare issues - we did just fine without the Federal governments' involvement and we can do that in the future. People must take more personal responsibility for their own health - the federal government will break the American economy if we allow them to continue with this crazy ponzy scheme!

We do not want the federal or state government to have any involvement in the oversight or provision of healthcare services – a little commonsense would have you look at Amtrak (Bankrupt), Social Security (Bankrupt), Fannie and Freddie Mac (Bankrupt), Medicaid (Bankrupt), Medicare (Bankrupt), the Postal Service (Bankrupt) – almost ever endeavor that our federal government becomes involved in is overstaffed, overspends, inefficient, wasteful, and a total failure.

It is time for all politicians with any commonsense to listen to their constituents, stand up and say NO!

john ruben| 9.10.09 @ 8:55AM

You paranoid wacked out right wing fools are clueless, you are in the minority, you will be further marginalized politically, and you indeed are lying stupid idiots. All of you will whine about this plan until you get cancer, get screwed by the insurance companies you claim to love, and die.

Michael L. Hauschild| 9.10.09 @ 9:00AM

Health care reform – 1.2 trillion

Ten year deficit – 9 trillion

Look on Pelosi’s face with
the “You lie” shout out - PRICELESS

Cindy Merrill| 9.10.09 @ 9:02AM

Want to know why healthcosts are rising? My husband and I are on SSI and we live on SNAP Food credit- we're both type 2 diabetic: John's doctor from the VA wants us to cut down on salt- but how can we when low sodium products costs 25-45% more? Explain how i'm supposed to buy Sugarfree/low sodium food on $102 SNAP Food credit a month. Want to know why my husband's medical bills costs taxpayers so much? look no further than the grocery aisle.

Moe Blotz| 9.10.09 @ 9:05AM

Please note also that the Chosen One who is smarter than all the rubes prefaced his remarks by mentioning all the groups who support his revolutionary efforts: doctors,nurses,hospitals,insurance companies,and a couple organisations. Never did I hear the speaker refer to any feedback from the American citizens whom he is supposed to serve. The misinformation and lies generated by right wing groups and talk radio mentioned in the middle of said speech referred to us.

Ammo Guy| 9.10.09 @ 9:07AM

I reserve the right to post foolish comments until after I hear from “Bob”…but Mr. Ruben’s brilliant insights get us off to a good start.

Frank| 9.10.09 @ 9:14AM

"We do not want the federal or state government to have any involvement in the oversight or provision of healthcare services – a little commonsense would have you look at Amtrak (Bankrupt), Social Security (Bankrupt), Fannie and Freddie Mac (Bankrupt), Medicaid (Bankrupt), Medicare (Bankrupt), the Postal Service (Bankrupt) – almost ever endeavor that our federal government becomes involved in is overstaffed, overspends, inefficient, wasteful, and a total failure."

Um, and private industry is always right. Oh wait, great depression. Oh wait, great recession of 2008-2009. Oh wait, the top 1% richest of all Americans (ie. not the people writing on this board) have accumulated a hugely disproportionate amount of the economic "growth" of the last 2 decades while wages for everyone else have remained flat. And to talk about fraud and waste like it is a uniquely governmental fault? Can you say Bernie Madoff, Allen Stanford, Enron, Worldcom, etc. etc. etc.?

I am a doctor, left-leaning centrist, and read conservative articles so I can try and understand what the other side is thinking. While some of the points above are valid, I cannot believe how much venom there exists to attack an effort to reform what is currently an unsustainable system. It is TRUE that people go bankrupt every hour, every day because when they get sick, they don't have insurance or they get dropped by their insurance company. In my line of work, I see this ALL THE TIME. People who are hardworking, tax-paying, children-raising citizens see their life-savings evaporate because of this ridiculous health care system. I would guess that no one posting hate on this board has had this happen to them.

All I'm saying is -- It's easy to be a critic in this world, and very difficult to be a creator. In a country and health-care system where there are so many moving parts and complexities, it is impossible to come up with the perfect bill. No matter what happens, probably at least 40% of the country is going to be somewhat unhappy - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I applaud the President and anyone willing to be constructive for working towards an improvement.

And by the way poster Lisa who wrote this: "We are bigger than they are. When are we going to stand up to them cheating low lifes. We have got to vote every one of those people out."

we did -- in November 2008. I believe the Republican party has a near (ok, not full) monopoly on the cheating low-life business.

Etiquette Man| 9.10.09 @ 9:23AM

Joe Wilson said what over half the country has been thinking.

The President DID lie.

Since the Dems have voted down amendments requiring verification of citizenship, the bill WILL cover illegals.

The President lied.

Why should Congressman Wilson have apologized for telling the truth?

Because it was uncivil? Well, it WAS uncivil, but so what?

When we have been called "evil mongers" and "Nazis" (by the leaders of the Senate and House, respectively), and when the President himself called opponents of the bill liars IN THE SPEECH, I say "nuts" to civility.

And it takes a lot to get "Etiquette Man" to throw etiquette to the wind . . .

Etiquette Man| 9.10.09 @ 9:31AM

Frank,

Glad to have you here, but I really don't understand what you don't understand about our strong opposition to this President's agenda.

We have been called "unpatriotic," "evil mongers," and "Nazis" for opposing the nationalization of 1/6 of our economy by a bunch of people who can't manage a 2 Billion "Cash for Clunkers" program. (Even you couldn't resist a cheap parting shot at republicans; did you notice that? I did.)

All of this is being done in direct contravention of a Constitution that most of us conservatives revere.

We are about to lose another chunk of our liberty to people who show us open, naked contempt.

With that in mind, and with all due respect to a left-of-center visitor, what exactly do you not understand?

Sincerely,
EM

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.10.09 @ 9:31AM

I am so sick of the endless regurgitations about the administration's health care plan...yuck!

It will cripple the country financially, it will put each of us in handcuffs, and it is but ONE facet of the communits' plans to turn this country into a totalitarian dictatorship.

Please, let us remind ourselves from time to time that the only way we are going to win this war is to fight it in concert with like minded people.

Forget for the time being arguing with left wing wack jobs. Let's get organized into one huge voice and ACTING on our conclusions.

Demonstrations are a start...but...
http://judgeroy.wordpress.com

Pingback| 9.10.09 @ 9:34AM

Obama, Wilson and O’Reilly – Disappointing | The Doc Is In links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…of behavior – please! In the final analysis, the “math” is going to determine the outcome of health care reform as suggested in Philip Klein’s article entitled: “ Time to Get Out the Iron “. He writes, in part,: ….As he has done before, Obama pledged to veto any bill that added to the deficit. But despite that commitment, the Congressional Budget Office has ruled that…

SHOCKMAN| 9.10.09 @ 9:42AM

I watched the Yankee game over the campaign speech. Great Game

Trotters = defeeted pigs| 9.10.09 @ 9:56AM

"Michael L. Hauschild| 9.10.09 @ 9:00AM
Health care reform – 1.2 trillion

Ten year deficit – 9 trillion

Look on Pelosi’s face with
the “You lie” shout out - PRICELESS "

Did the reject bride of Frankenstein pop some stitches?

GringoBob | 9.10.09 @ 10:04AM

Obamacare - the hidden agenda, as usual ...

If we get Obamacare, you can bet it will soon turn into universal government run healthcare which is the "real agenda" as has been openly and publically declared by BarackO for several years - and here is the reason why he desprately wants it -

The largest single employer in the world is the Red Army with about 10 million employees - second is India's Railway System with about 1.6 million and third is the United Kindom healthcare system with about 1.3 million folks - nationalized Obamacare would employ about 6.5 million folks which replaces India's Railway System as second largest employer on the planet -

The Obama touch will then require all these folks to become union members of SEIU and we end up with 6.5 million loyal voters for Obama, 6.5 million new members for his friends at SEIU, 6.5 million liabilities for the taxpayers and countless $ Trillions of dollars in new debt for America - the irony of course is that this radical operation in the shadows will be paid for with taxpayer money which will pay those 6.5 million new union members paying their dues with our money whether we like it or not - something fishy here ?

GringoBob in the republic of Costa Rica - remember those days ?

Glenn Beck - Fox news channel - Monday thru Friday - 5:00 pm EST

here is our Voting matrix = http://Group912.org

help stop the EPA = http://StopEPA.com

Frank| 9.10.09 @ 10:07AM

Etiquette Man - to be fair, the evil-monger/Nazi catcalls have been directed at both sides. I'm not sure that's productive in any setting, directed at anyone in particular, unless it's actually true -- which in the case of the vast majority of both liberal and conservative activists, it's NOT. Makes me actually wonder how many of the people throwing around "Nazi" accusations were actually around when the Nazis were, and actually know any of that history. Or if they just like to throw that term around because they know it draws attention.

But I appreciate your reasonable response to my post.

There is one thing (probably the only thing!) I agree with Sarah Palin on -- the media is totally out of control, which is probably an outgrowth of grass-roots internet journalism, where he who yells loudest and most outrageously gets the headline. Screaming "nazi" and "socialism" no matter who it's at is just dumb and uninformed since no country, not even China, is purely socialist/communist, and no country is purely capitalist, not even our own at the height of Reaganism.

One thing (among many) I agree with that Obama with is his desire to have a reasonable discussion amongst reasonable people. When Old Texican above writes: "It will cripple the country financially, it will put each of us in handcuffs, and it is but ONE facet of the communits' plans to turn this country into a totalitarian dictatorship" -- I mean, seriously, if all but the most extreme of the readers here actually look into themselves and is honest, is there really any chance that Obama is trying to turn the USA into a totalitarian dictatorship? This is complete hyperbole and is just someone spouting off without actually having thought about the issues.

And regarding the Constitution -- I'm not sure what part of universal healthcare is a violation of the constitution -- is it electronic medical records that would allow doctors/nurses who are unfamiliar with you to see your medical history, medications, allergies, previous workup? Is it the personal mandate to have insurance (I don't see anyone complaining seriously about mandatory auto insurance)? Is it the so-called tax if you don't get insurance ( I don't see anyone seriously calling sales tax unconstitutional)? These things might be undesirable to some but I'm not sure how it's unconstitutional (disclaimer - I am not a constitutional law professor, although our President was).

I really just don't see how universal healthcare in and of itself (even if we went to a single-payer healthcare system) is really losing a chunk of liberty. Obviously there are subtleties. But the first sentence of the constitution preamble mentions that part of its purpose is to "promote the general welfare". With 30-50 million (depending on how you define it) uninsured people, I'm not sure how extending insurance to them is would not be considered promotion of general welfare.

Anyway, looking forward to reasonable discussion here. Sorry for long post, thanks for reading to anyone who has actually gotten here.

Tenn Slim| 9.10.09 @ 10:10AM

All
News from the Seniors of NE Arkansas.
The proposed OBAMACARE, in whatever form, will not be accepeted by the Seniors. The old geezers that stood tall in the Town Hall meetings, the same old Geezers that fought Communisim, Korea style and cold war style. The same old geezers that defended our nation in the Nam war, the same ones that now, have to stand up, cause our kids don't have enough sense or courage to stand tall for liberty.
A sad day for the USA, when folks that are old enough to have seen the White Buffalo a dozen times, now have to, once again, stand up and defend our rights.
Bt
By the way, Susskind's nomination caused a ground swell in NE Ark, vis a vis his attitude toward Guns, perse. He defintely will not be welcomed in the Land of Opportunity.
end

Pingback| 9.10.09 @ 10:16AM

Reasonandjest.com » Reactions to Obama’s Government Medicine Speech links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Medicine Speech By Scott Lazarowitz, September 10, 2009 10:16 am Here are some reactions and commentaries to President Obama’s speech last night: Lew Rockwell: Rude, But Right Philip Klein: Time to Get Out the Iron Michael Graham’s Live Blogging During the Speech and on his Lying About Coverage for Illegal Aliens Lee Cary: Obama’s Gift Has Stopped Giving Uncategorized Leave a Reply Cancel Reply…

sclemens| 9.10.09 @ 10:21AM

Obama - Not all Americans are mindless welfare recipients. We remember what you have said.

"...we spend too much on health care..."
"80% of health care expenses are end-of-life care"
"...give granny a pain pill..."
"...set up health care effectiveness board."

Oh, and health care won't be rationed!

LIAR

RichS| 9.10.09 @ 10:22AM

Frank - you're correct, there are significant problems with health care today. But to use a favorite phrase of President Obama's we are being presented with a false choice. The discussion is being framed as a choice between keeping what we have today or handing over health care to the Feds (and make no mistake about it, despite protestations to the contrary, the end game is about a single payer system). When do we get to have an honest dialogue about the health care system with everything on the table like Health Savings accounts, the ability to buy insurance across state lines, cutting back insurance mandates and mandatory riders that increase the cost of health insurance, the role of cost shifting that obscures the true cost of Medicare services, and so on? This is an important discussion so let's have it. Here's a radical notion: get the problem defined correctly before crafting a solution.

Obviously, the solution for politicians is always more power and control - it doesn't really matter what the problem is.

Joe| 9.10.09 @ 10:28AM

Excellent article, Mr. Klein and follow up Big J. I would be laughable if it weren't so serious and dangerous to Americans.

Joe| 9.10.09 @ 10:31AM

Frank you are right and Joe Wilson also. I liked what he did. That arrogant, condesending socialists needs to here the truth. We know he is lieing about the whole health care reform. It is about take over not reform.

Etiquette Man| 9.10.09 @ 10:32AM

Frank,

You wrote: "Etiquette Man - to be fair, the evil-monger/Nazi catcalls have been directed at both sides."

That is not true. Pelosi called us "Nazis" and Harry "This War is Lost" Reid called us "evil mongers."

You are either uniformed or you are lying.

If you can't even get that right, then you are living in parallel universe, and there is no point in having a discussion.

Regretfully,
EM

Etiquette Man| 9.10.09 @ 10:33AM

Erratum: In my post to Frank, 'uniformed' have been "uninformed"

I rather doubt that Frank is currently 'uniformed' and would be at least slightly surprised to learn that he ever had been

MMC

JP| 9.10.09 @ 10:44AM

"I really just don't see how universal healthcare in and of itself (even if we went to a single-payer healthcare system) is really losing a chunk of liberty. Obviously there are subtleties."

You must be kidding, right? For the Dems all people, whether they want to or not, must be enrolled in some plan. If they cannot afford private health care, then they must enroll in what the government calls "non-profit co-opts". These co-opts will have to get a significant infusion of tax dollars just to be able to get off the floor. The 2 plans out there now call for the creation of dozens of new bureaucratic agenies that will "manage" everything from what coverage you are entitled to and what coverage doctors can provide and what they can charge.

At some point, employers will realize that it is cheaper to pay the fines and not offer health insurance to thier employees. When that occurs, individuals will have no choice but to sign on to the government plan. Private insurance groups will become an appendage to the federal government (like Fannie Mae), or they will get out of the health care business altogether.

The other thing you failed to even consider is the cost. Medicare is one $40 trillion unfunded liability. Add on 100-150 million new health care consumers, and the entire system will collapse.

Either you haven't been paying attention to the debate this summer, or you willfully pretend to be a "moderate".

Ralph L. Franco| 9.10.09 @ 10:48AM

I could not would not watch this lying charlatain do it again. Every time he speaks on this or most topics, he insults my intelligence and common sense. I can truly understand why that congressman called him a liar because you get so frustrated, it becomes impossible to contain yourself. We need to make sure this commie has only one term.

Ammo Guy| 9.10.09 @ 10:50AM

Since Frank is a doctor, I would be curious to hear what he thinks of tort reform, which he failed to mention in his postings. Does he find malpractice insurance to be a burden? Or is his medical judgment never questioned by his patients? If the President was truly “willing to be constructive for working towards an improvement” you think he would’ve addressed this aspect of the problem. It would also be interesting to hear from whence he hails because that may play a role in his “left-leaning centrist” disposition. Methinks he’s from the NE, but I could be wrong. Meanwhile, “I believe the Republican party has a near (ok, not full) monopoly on the cheating low-life business” – tell that to Charley Rangel or the 40-some NJ pols now in front of a judge.

Robert| 9.10.09 @ 10:54AM

Frank, All you need to do to understand the rank subterfuge that is essential to the core agenda of Obama is to read Matthew Vadum's article in Townhall.com: http://townhall.com/columnists.....corn_exposé_stealing_democracy

Everything, I MEAN everything this 'Inglorious Basterd' in the Oval Office is doing is textbook radicalism. Obama is the genetic child of Alinsky, Radke, West, Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, Pfleger, Hayden, Fonda, Cloward-Piven, and granddaddy Marx.

Trust anything...EVERYTHING he says to be calculated mainstream radicalism. Obama is from the gentle school of radicalism. He shares the DNA with the Alinsky branch...not the Hayden SDS wing. Destroy gently, quietly from within wearing suits and ties. Don't bomb (sorry William and Bernardine!) , burden society with untenable debt which will lead to social chaos which will justify radical takeover. But be assured, though their tactics may differ, their ultimate goal is identical.

We are in the foundational implementation of this tactical process. The takeovers of business and banks, the takeover of medical care...it's all part of the simple process required by the quiet radicals to destroy the corpus from within. Watch it proceed from foundation to walls to the roof - probably by 2011. There will be no elections as martial law will be called to quell social chaos as liberty-loving Americans, fighting for their birthright and economic survival, will be called subversives in full Orwellian grandeur.

The next few years will be VERY ugly.

Logan| 9.10.09 @ 10:55AM

Frank,

How can you be in favor of any government forcing a citizen to by any private product?
How is that not tyrany?
Can the government force you to buy a product from my business?

The government does not force you to buy car insurance. They force you to be financially responsible for the damage that you may cause if you drive a car. You don't have to drive and don't have to buy auto insurance.

If you progressives want this universal coverage, then come up with an honest proposal that includes new taxes to pay for it. What your doing now is playing Santa Claus, all benefits (according to you) with no cost to anyone.

JP| 9.10.09 @ 10:57AM

"One thing (among many) I agree with that Obama with is his desire to have a reasonable discussion amongst reasonable people"

Again Frank, you must be joking? The GOP has been frozen out of the House debate from day one. In the Senate, the 3 GOP Senators that make up the gang of 6 were given a false choice of the Public Option or Co-opts (ie a public Option), or a trigger to a Public Option. That's it. Nothing, Nada. Pro Life lawmkaers were either lied to, or told to get lost. To those who disagreed, Pelosi labeled them Nazis; the President called them liars, and Reid called them UnAmerican. So much for your "civil discourse".

Frank, people like you just want discussions that lead nowhere but to a predetermined outcome. Just wasteful verbiage.

Frank| 9.10.09 @ 10:59AM

Well there goes the intelligent discussion.

Try these links and then try and rethink your previous post. Apologies will be accepted. Like I said, crazy stuff is said by both sides and is equally unproductive.

http://www.newser.com/story/67.....ma-is.html

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908060021

Not to mention all the ridiculous hub-bub about Obama's stay in school, work hard, be responsible, success is not easy speech to schoolkids. That was completely ridiculous - thankfully most of the Republicans agreed that it was.

Frank| 9.10.09 @ 11:00AM

Oops- forum will not let me post even more links to people calling Obama a Nazi. Here they are:

http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.....o_nazi_in/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgSBumvA11M

Pingback| 9.10.09 @ 11:05AM

Some Comments on Obama’s Wednesday Night Speech on Health Care « Cliftonchadwick's Bl links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…would have been ashamed to say it. Tucker Carlson is a contributor to the Fox News Channel. He previously hosted The Situation with Tucker Carlson and Tucker on MSNBC after working for CNN. Time to Get Out the Iron By Philip Klein on 9.10.09 @ 6:09AM At one point during his health care speech to a joint session of Congress, President Obama drew cackles for remarking that “there remain some significant…

Joe| 9.10.09 @ 11:05AM

By the way, Frank look at Amendment #9 to the constitution. It spells out the the government is to do nothing that is not spelled out in the constitution. And getting involved with the economy like owning Companies, GM & Chrysler, firing independent CEOs and starting up a insurance company is not allowed. It is therefore illegal like Medicare and Medicaid before it.

Appleby| 9.10.09 @ 11:08AM

“by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits,..."

This reminds me of the plaintive waiil of the union bus driver that he could keep to the schedule if only he didn't have to stop for passengers.

Pingback| 9.10.09 @ 11:08AM

UrbanGrounds | Obama: Liar in Chief Gives Another Lecture on the Manufactured Health links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…and meet constituents), the president said there were “47 million Americans who have no health insurance.” Was Obama lying then? Or is he lying now? I vote “both.” Philip Klein at The American Spectator: At one point during his health care speech to a joint session of Congress, President Obama drew cackles for remarking that “there remain some significant details to be ironed out.” Uh huh. Like,…

Frank| 9.10.09 @ 11:10AM

And by the way Etiquette Man - the uniformed (the military) in this country are taken care of by nationalized health care, and even Bill Kristol said on the Daily Show that theirs is the best health care you can get in the nation. Ah, the evils of government-run healthcare.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/wa.....ll-kristol

And Logan, who wrote: "The government does not force you to buy car insurance. They force you to be financially responsible for the damage that you may cause if you drive a car. You don't have to drive and don't have to buy auto insurance."

OK, I guess if you don't want to drive then you don't have to have insurance. But next time you get pulled over and the cop asks you where your insurance is and you say "I'll be responsible for whatever financial damage occurs from use of my uninsured car", let me know how far that gets you. Auto insurance is MANDATORY if you want to drive. If you don't, then I guess you are right. But the government is still forcing you to buy insurance if you do.

"If you progressives want this universal coverage, then come up with an honest proposal that includes new taxes to pay for it. What your doing now is playing Santa Claus, all benefits (according to you) with no cost to anyone."

This I agree with completely -- I think Obama is doing a bad job trying to please everyone when it's probably not possible to truly provide universal healthcare without raising some taxes on the middle class eventually. Even a token tax increase (almost like a co-pay) would probably raise a lot of money and give the idea that if everyone is going to benefit, then everyone who can contribute, should.

And JP - what I want is a reasonable discussion. I actually agree with taxing employer health benefits, which is not in keeping with most progressives. If not that, I agree with some tax increases on some portion of the middle class like I said above -- and if by some miracle that generates "too much" money it can always be returned via a tax rebate.

But what I don't want is senseless name-calling that distracts from the problem at hand. And it is truly a mess out there right now, with no real solution in sight.

Ryan| 9.10.09 @ 11:26AM

Frank

One problem that I think you're overlooking.

The President has NOT welcomed conservatives to the table. There has been little - if any - bipartisan input into the health care bill. Conservatives have some pretty good, low-or-no cost measures on the table - HSA expansion, tort reform, dropping state lines - and we KEEP being accused of not bringing anything to the table when we're not being offered a spot.

The President has NOT met with the Republicans on this issue. We are NOT being listened to. He does NOT practice what he preaches.

Yes, there is some idiotic language coming out from the right that are essentially "slippery slope" arguments - which could basically be cured with specific language in the bill that keeps being voted down (paying for abortions, illegal immigration, etc...).

Two questions for you, as a doctor, and one as a citizen - what would tort reform do for you, and have you looked into the Republican offers?

Where is the bipartisanship on this bill?

jack| 9.10.09 @ 11:28AM

republicans are to blame for having a complete imbecile as President. If they had been fiscally conservative when they had power this moron would not be president,instead they spent like drunken democrats,leaving Dems only place to go,off the cliff. Please,no more Bushes,no more compassionate conservatives,no more moderates, and no more McCains.

Shamus| 9.10.09 @ 11:32AM

Obama has the abilities of Jimmy Carter and the ethics of Richard Nixon.

JP| 9.10.09 @ 11:34AM

"And by the way Etiquette Man - the uniformed (the military) in this country are taken care of by nationalized health care, and even Bill Kristol said on the Daily Show that theirs is the best health care you can get in the nation."

Yes, and it is very very expensive. The DOD spends nearly $100 billion to subisidize the health care of about 1.2 million active duty servicemen and thier families. Free health care is inducement to join the military, not a right. And it costs the taxpayers much. Try offering that to all Americans and it would cost over $2 trillion a year.

Pete| 9.10.09 @ 11:34AM

Recall when the Messiah said everyone would be around the table and that the healthcare discussions would be televised for all to see? Another lie. He is only interested in increasing his own power - which is why this thing is being crafted by "stakeholders (read: those who will vote for him and donate money, unions, etc...)" in secret while neither the public nor Republicans get any say in the matter.

JP| 9.10.09 @ 11:38AM

"The President has NOT met with the Republicans on this issue. We are NOT being listened to. He does NOT practice what he preaches"

Actually he did meet with them in February. He rubbed his victory in thier noses. He smugly told them , "I Won!". That is President's first and only forray into Bi-partisanship.

JP| 9.10.09 @ 11:42AM

"And JP - what I want is a reasonable discussion. I actually agree with taxing employer health benefits, which is not in keeping with most progressives"

Many conservatives as well as McCain wish to tax insurance benefits if only to get employers out of the picture. But, they also proposed giving families tax breaks for buying thier own private plans. Couple that with giving private citizens the ability to buy health insurance from out of state insurance companies and you are on the road to lowering health insurance costs -almost overnight.

rmm| 9.10.09 @ 11:43AM

Frank,
Allow me to retort. Although your broadside was eloquent in some respects, you focus on a single aspect of the overall problem we face. The Anointed One has done nothing about the economy, before moving on to health care. Is it any wonder people are losing their jobs and benefits, thus exacerbating the effect. Obama should stop playing to his political cronies, ie Tort Bar and craft legislation that We can believe in. This comes from a guy who started out as a Dem. went Republican and now I'm Independent. Enoughhhhhh of the demagoguery.

Anthony| 9.10.09 @ 11:44AM

That was quite THE performance of Orwell's "Animal Farm"; why, the actors on stage were just so perfect in their roles. I thought Biden and Pelosi were marvelous as barnyard stooges. Their vacant stares and braying were very convincing.
All that was missing was the constant visage of Henry Waxman behind "The One", as he reprised his role as head pig, Napoleon". Perhaps Waxman's "Napoleon" was the teleprompter, an ingenious theatrical devise for "The One" to use to mouth all the proper words. Anyway, I bet the Kennedy Center was playing to an empty crowd last night. Who says TV is lacking for cultural performances? Bravo to director David Axelrod.

James| 9.10.09 @ 11:48AM

Hey Cindy, not sure if you are aware of this but there is a whole section in grocery stores with low salt and fat foods. It is called the fruit and vegetable aisle. It is the one on the opposite end of the store from the bakery.

Northern Rebel| 9.10.09 @ 11:49AM

The word of the night was "required".

There is nothing in our constitution that can allow government to "require" us to buy anything!

What it will do is "require" us to take back our country from the communist, terrorist, racist, loving Anti-Christ!

Dagny Taggert| 9.10.09 @ 11:49AM

Thank you Frank for your decorum. I don't think you have responded to Ammo Guy's (and most of us conservatives) feelings about tort reform. True reform for the healthcare industry pulls costs out of the system--and after seeing my physician this morning he concurred with my questions about what a burden his malpractice insurance is on his practice. Much of the anger here is from folks who see this INCREDIBLY important piece of the puzzle left out of the picture.

When B.O. mentioned we were the only developed economy in the world that doesn't have universal coverage, he's being soooo disingenuous--what about the fact that we're the only developed economy in the world that doesn't have limits on awards or penalties for plaintiffs bringing bad lawsuits to court?

Until he approaches the ECONOMICS of the problems in healthcare, his political solutions are bereft any serious consideration by those of us who question his glossed-over rhetoric.

sub| 9.10.09 @ 12:07PM

obama is a joke. a partisan empty suit, with no details, no credibility, totally arrogant and narcissistic. can't wait til he's gone....

Big J| 9.10.09 @ 12:13PM

I believe that Frank is neither a doctor, nor a "left of center" individual searching for civil debate. He is a plant, sneaking in the back door under the guise "I'm just looking for real solutions".

If you had been reading conservative publications as you claim, Frank, you would know that we have offered many sensible solutions that would not completely scrap the best medical system in the world.

You still haven't answered tort reform, Frank. It's very burdensome for all REAL doctors I talk to, and like many of the government mandates currently in place, drive medical costs through the roof. How much do YOU pay per year in malpractice insurance, huh Frank? I talked with doctors that pay over $250,000 per year, and have actually relocated to states like Texas that have some sort of tort liability protections in place (loser pays, for example).

Hey Frank, listen to your president's words, and think about them for a second. Use your head, man. If you made it through med school, that shouldn't be too difficult.

Your dear leader says, "We have identified $500 billion in waste and fraud in the medicare system."

Why not attack that to start with, before we throw the baby out with the bathwater?

"I'm willing to look at pilot programs regarding tort reform just to see if it works".

Why not do that before we fundamentally transform the entire system and put another 53 bureaucratic agencies in charge of our medical care?

I have a feeling that before this thread dies, Frank will expose himself for who he really is: another leftist hack that claims to be someone he is not in an effort to hijack the discussion.

I've seen you before, Frank, more times than I can count.

Now get lost before you embarrass yourself. You are out of your league here.

Dustoff| 9.10.09 @ 12:20PM

Frank.

One thing I see you haven't said zip about. If this gov health care is SO good. Why isn't the Prez, congress & senate signing up for it? They still retain their PRIVATE insurance.

By the way Frank, I'm a fire figher Medic and now work part time as a fight nurse. So let's talk about them bills shall we.

Pingback| 9.10.09 @ 12:32PM

More Headlines… « SCHotline Mobile links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Politico | Wilson’s rallying cry Illegal Immigrants and HR 3200: Estimate of Potential Costs to Taxpayers Weekly Standard | Lots of Promises But Math Doesn’t Add Up Am. Spectator | Obama Has No Answer to Difficult Questions More hard-hitting news about Michelle Obama ▶ Comment Click here to cancel reply. Name (required) E-mail (required, not published) Website (not required) Notify me of…

Oldefarte| 9.10.09 @ 12:36PM

I watched a movie last night instead of having to stomach his lies----------anyone who even pays a minute of time listening to him is a stupid fool!!!!

Owen| 9.10.09 @ 12:42PM

@ Frank:

With all due respect, the auto insurance mandate is a state issue, not federal. The laws requiring this are issued by the state's legislatures and there is no federal involvement. This complies with both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Many other federal programs do not, but this root of your argument is fallacious.

Frank| 9.10.09 @ 12:57PM

Sorry guys, haven't replied to tort reform because I was away from my office. But here's my two cents on that -- and bear in mind that despite my talking, I must admit I don't understand all the moving parts that are present (it is unlikely that anyone on this board does).

I am all for tort reform -- I'm not sure what doctor in his/her right mind wouldn't be. I'm not sure that fear of lawsuits is really what drives defensive medicine, although it probably does play some part. That being said, malpractice insurance, as noted above, has changed the economics of being a doctor completely in that some doctors just can't survive without either dropping the lower paying insurances or just moving somewhere there is tort reform. So my opinion on tort reform in a nutshell is that we should have it -- set some sort of a cap (I don't know, 250K? just throwing that out there), and possibly consider a penalty to the plaintiff for filing what a judge or jury considers a frivolous lawsuit.

If you accomplish tort reform and thereby decrease malpractice insurance premiums, then you can follow that up with a decrease in payments to doctors for various procedures etc. without overly affecting doctor income. It is generally the surgical/procedural specialties that have both the highest malpractice premiums AND the highest fees for their services. If you cut both, then there is less overall cost. That may keep some doctors in the lower-paying insurance plans. I'm positive I am way-oversimplifying this but I think the principle is reasonable.

And JP -- you wrote: "Yes, and it is very very expensive. The DOD spends nearly $100 billion to subisidize the health care of about 1.2 million active duty servicemen and thier families. Free health care is inducement to join the military, not a right. And it costs the taxpayers much. Try offering that to all Americans and it would cost over $2 trillion a year."

I'm not sure where you got your numbers but your math is clearly off. If it cost 100B to cover 1.2 servicemen and families and there are ~300 million americans, it would cost 30 trillion dollars. The most recent numbers I've been able to find are from the Boston Globe in 2007 which said Tri-Care (for active/retired servicemen and families) cost 39B for 9M people. Add that to the most recent GAO report I could find about the VA which said that in 2002 (I know, a long time ago) the govt spent 23B for 4M VA patients -- the math comes to ~60 billion for 13 million patients, or roughly 4-5K per patient. If there are 300M people then it would cost 1.2-1.5 trillion to have a VA/Tricare-like system for all americans. Again, I'm sure this is a gross oversimplification since there are different patient mixes etc..

For comparison, the National Coalition on Healthcare estimates that in 2009 healthcare expenditures will = 2.5 trillion.

And Big J, I am exactly who I say I am. Not sure why you feel the need to make personal attacks. Just trying to have a discussion here -- this is a forum after all.

Links for the #s I gave above:

http://www.boston.com/news/nat.....readiness/

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03579r.pdf

JP| 9.10.09 @ 1:02PM

Frank, the number should have been $50 billion, but the also includes the VA, the military run hospitals, as well as pay outs to civilian and foreign hospitals and doctors. There are 1.2 million active duty plus another 6 million family members and another 7 million retirees.

Lou Filliger| 9.10.09 @ 1:04PM

Frank -- I agree with you about it being easier to destroy than to create. That's why it's so outrageous to see the destroyers (liberal Congress and President Obama) taking another huge whack at our inidividual freedoms, as guaranteed by the creators (our Founding Fathers), and their creation, the constitution. What sort of creativity is involved in another wealth-transfer program? New, fresh-sounding ways to screw the troops, I guess. Don't be surprised when we fight, hard, to save what is left of our beautiful country and our sacred Constitution.

Frank| 9.10.09 @ 1:06PM

So $50B for 1.2M active duty + 6M family + 7M retirees = $50B for ~14M people or about $3500 per person -- extrapolate that to 300 million Americans is about 1.05 trillion as opposed to my previous guesstimate of 1.2-1.5 trillion. That sounds even better unless I didn't understand your adjustment of the #s.

Frank| 9.10.09 @ 1:10PM

And @Owen - point taken - I was not aware of how that works at the state vs. federal level. Even so I don't think having an individual mandate is a bad thing. The more uninsured there are, the more of the cost of their care gets spread around to the taxpayer -- they are essentially getting care for free. Now one might argue that patients on medicaid etc. are getting care for free on the taxpayer too, so why not just expand medicaid and forego the mandate. That's reasonable I suppose, but I would guess that a significant portion of the 30-50M uninsured would not be eligible for medicaid as it exists today, and so would have to pay money into the system rather than freeload off the taxpaying public.

Kate| 9.10.09 @ 1:35PM

The problem is that no matter what the guy says now, it is too late. No one except the most ardent follower believes him anymore. He says one thing one week, then changes the next week and the only conclusion one can draw is the he is confused and has gone back to campaign style rhetoric to try to spin us into submission. He so plainly does not know what he is talking about and he really has no plan. His ONLY imperative is government control.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.10.09 @ 1:38PM

Folks, remember above when I wrote:

>>Forget for the time being arguing with left wing wack jobs. Let's get organized into one huge voice and ACTING on our conclusions.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.10.09 @ 1:42PM

My post was cut off. "Frank" is simply "Bob" with a new set of credentials and another falsified background.
Don't waste your time on him.
Actually FrankBob, my hyperbole was in fact brief understatement.

Jeff Perren | 9.10.09 @ 1:56PM

""To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end -- and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.”

The money quote. That Obama even has Progressive friends is a major part of the problem. That he is giving them a wink and a nod that - however he has to get there - he is for Progressive (i.e. Fascist) government is the fundamental problem.

It's not about the money, quality, access, or even bashing 'greedy' insurance companies. It's about the desire to eliminate freedom of choice in America. That's the Progressive's basic goal, and has been for 100 years. That's exactly why Obama feels quite comfortable around men like Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Van Jones, et al.

Big J| 9.10.09 @ 1:57PM

"The more uninsured there are, the more of the cost of their care gets spread around to the taxpayer -- they are essentially getting care for free. Now one might argue that patients on medicaid etc. are getting care for free on the taxpayer too, so why not just expand medicaid and forego the mandate."

Self employed doctor or not, you gotta know that the U.S. government confiscates money from every individual (plus employer match) for medicaid. Same with social insecurity. They are both broke, because the government has proven that they are horrible stewards of our money (after all, they get excellent health care and retirement benefits).

"The more uninsured there are, the more of the cost of their care gets spread around to the taxpayer -- they are essentially getting care for free."

Spread around to the taxpayer? How's that? It gets spread to those that choose to responsibly carry health insurance. That's another Obama-lie.

30 to 50 million? I noticed last night that the 47 million number had conveniently changed. After all, when 17 million are illegal aliens, how on earth are we to be expected to believe that they won't be covered under our new "plan"?.

My contention stands. You are not who you say you are.

crookedwren| 9.10.09 @ 2:24PM

As for Frank, read Liberal Fascism for a history of the Progressive (aka Communist) Movement -- and realize that even O. wasn't concerned about using the word "Progressives." I find the word daunting.

Also, if you believe that Republicans have the edge on vituperation, LOL. Read Ann Coulter's book "Guilty." In point of fact, the Republicans (and I am not a Republican -- yet) have been quite gallant.

If you, like Bill O'Reilly, think that self-avowed Communists and mockers of free speech (Mark Lloyd) having a major influence in the White House is not a "big deal," well, I can only believe that you have been watching too many Michael Moore propaganda films. Or you're too young to remember the stories about life in the USSR that managed to slip past Pravda. (Not to mention life behind the Berlin Wall or in Fidel's Havana.)

I can tell you now that, while my own life is a financial struggle, I'll take that -- with the soupcon of liberty that hasn't been stolen by Neo-Democratic Progressives who are in power at the local, state, and federal levels to a horrifying degree.

I pay for my own health care. I just recently had to switch because, yes, Blue Cross Blue Shield kept raising my premiums.

Guess what I did? I looked for a different group. And found a plan that grouped self-employed and individuals who work for employers part-time and don't have benefits.

It's a pretty good plan. I've had health problems arise, not long after getting on the new plan. They've treated me fairly.

But guess what? Under Obamacare, really soon after it goes into effect (after the next presidential election -- isn't THAT convenient???), I wouldn't have been able to look for another company. Nope. Straight I'd go to that Public-y not-for-profit thing. And if THAT rate goes up? And up? And up? WHAT CHOICE WILL I HAVE THEN?

Zippo. Nada. Zero. Zilch. None.

And that's the sticking point, you see, for those of us who really detest government that is too big, too intrusive, too overwheening.

crookedwren| 9.10.09 @ 2:32PM

Thanks to those who mentioned the Ted Kennedy memorial service held last night during the Health Care Speech.

Obama and his Progressive (aka Communist) cronies want me to take my moral and character cues from the life and moral character of TED KENNEDY?

And when O. mentioned -- I wish I could have written down the entire quote -- but part of it went something like "that's something that a parent shouldn't have to hear"????

How about a parent hearing that a daughter has been lost because a certain public figure drove her into the drink and was so concerned about keeping his position that he didn't alert the authorities.

Mary Jo K. died from asphyxiation -- not from drowning. Had he notified someone sooner, she might be alive today to tell us about sanctimonious Ted.

Owen| 9.10.09 @ 2:50PM

I have a different take on this.

Given the government mandated rates for Medicare and Medicaid, the payments for these services are depressed below sustainability. Additionally, many hospitals are forced to essentially take losses on uninsured patients that do not pay, often illegal aliens. Even if there is some cost recoup through the government programs, the same reduced rate schedules will likely still apply, Given these conditions, the net result is a transfer payment system by which the private insurance companies, their customers who are patients and other paying non insured patients support the medical system, while the government programs get a reduced cost and pass the costs on to the rest of us who pay for insurance.

Expanding Medicare or a "public option" will reduce the pool of available funding for transfer payments and drive private insurance and non insured costs higher, eventually removing competition by driving the private insurance companies out of business.

The net result is an increase in costs for the "public" sector after competition has died off.

By the way, I have close relatives in both VA and TriCare. If this is model care you can keep it. Both have trouble finding physicians to provide care locally. Costs are still prohibitive. Delays in the VA system are interminable. Additionally, I grew up in a military family and the care there was not comparable to anything I have experienced in private care.

lurkertroll| 9.10.09 @ 2:52PM

Once again they throw out the auto insurance argument. Last I checked no one forced you to drive. So if you don't drive you don't have to have auto insurance, so therefore only your own actions ie driving, cause a requirement/mandate to kick in.
But for health insurance with a requirement it would actually be your parents actions ie bringing you into the world that would cause a requirement or mandate. Thus being in effect a tax on being alive. Awesome a tax on being alive. See the difference? you CAN chose legally not to drive and thus not pay for auto insurance, you cannot legally chose not to live. So please stop trying to use this silly auto crap as a good argument for forced insurance.

tj| 9.10.09 @ 2:54PM

Frank,
Thanks for your calm, intelligent responses presenting the other side, it has been pretty informative. I just had a couple of comments on things you said, the first being on the auto insurance vs. health insurance question. At first, I agreed with you that the government does force us to buy auto insurance, even when another commenter posted that it is only if you drive. However, the more I thought it about it the more I realized the government should have this right since they are the ones that paid for the roads. In other words, auto insurance, toll booths, etc. are a way of regulating a service the government provides. I am pretty sure you do not have to have auto insurance, or a license for that matter, if the only place you drive is your private property. However, unless the government has granted my health or life (like they provide roads in the above example) I should not be forced to buy health insurance. It is not the government that has granted me any of these privileges, therefore, they should not have the ability to regulate in the same way they regulate auto insurance.
You also mentioned that you don’t see how government health care takes away liberty. Well, by definition is has to. Anytime you grant control of something to an outside organization you lose liberty. Sometimes though, this is a good thing. For instance, the American government has the ability to draft citizens against their will. This is obviously a violation of liberty…citizens are less free because this can happen. However, most people are perfectly fine with this because of the enormous benefit having a military (or police force) has. In actuality, it assures liberty because it protects from the abuses of outside powers and fellow citizens. Forcing people to buy health insurance does not pass this test.
The declaration of independence lists 3 specific rights granted by the Creator and that should be protected by the government: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You could argue that government health insurance protects life and potentially even the pursuit of happiness. However, there are many things that this argument could be made for. This has to be balanced against its restriction of liberty. Sometimes these rights are mutually exclusive, guaranteeing one takes away from the other. If every little specific issue, like healthcare, becomes a right, eventually the citizen is left with no liberty because the government makes all decisions. For instance (this is an extreme example, but bear with me). If the government eventually decides that it promotes the general welfare for them to tell people in what career field they will work, that is obviously too restrictive of liberty even if it is true that it does promote the general welfare.
The way I see it is there are those 3 rights as listed in the Declaration. Everything else is a means to protect those rights. A government that provides a military and police force is not a right in itself. Civil Rights are not a right in themselves. All of these are a means to guarantee one of these 3 rights. For example, I believe the government guarantee of civil rights actually helps ensure all 3 of these rights for a large percentage of the population (minorities) and therefore is very necessary, but that doesn’t make it a right.
I do not believe that healthcare passes the test and it does enough to guarantee anyone of the three rights listed in the declaration for the government to assume a large amount of control. I will say, people used to say the same thing about slavery, a standing army, etc., and they were wrong. I could be wrong on healthcare. However, the reason I oppose the plan is because I think it unnecessarily restricts liberty and if that pattern is followed, in 100 years liberty will be even more restricted in America. I believe there are viable options that do not restrict liberty for fixing healthcare, and, when that is the case, these options should always be explored first.

Eric| 9.10.09 @ 2:55PM

wow, all this red meat. i'm a lifelong republican, and can't understand why we can't offer a viable solution. where's our plan?

the most you bozos can muster is calling obama a liar? if we're out of power for the next 10 years, its because of your myopic, hysterical rants.

Duke| 9.10.09 @ 3:03PM

"The uniformed (the military) in this country are taken care of by nationalized health care, and even Bill Kristol said on the Daily Show that theirs is the best health care you can get in the nation."

With all due respect to Mr. Kristol - that statement is pure horsecrap. I'm retired USAF, and have been exposed to the military (and VA) healthcare system for 35 years. It's cheap, but it's not the best.

crookedwren| 9.10.09 @ 3:05PM

Um, Eric, I believe that several viable solutions have been suggested by Republicans over the past two months or so.

Tort Reform. Some regulation on the Health Insurance Industry to prevent them from dropping clients who get sick, buying across state lines (increasing competition), etc.

If you want to hear "myopic, hysterical rants," watch NBC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. And read Frank Rich and others in the NYTimes.

Actually, some well-documented materials can be found in two books -- Donkey Cons and Ann Coulter's "Guilty."

I've been getting an education about how "fair" the Republicans have been treated.

And, by the way, I've been a lifelong Dem. But I'm ready to leave the party. It's been invaded by "Progressives" -- which is the 30s code word for Communists.

I'm uncomfortable with that. In fact, I find it terrifying.

Frank| 9.10.09 @ 3:15PM

Big J - I can't exactly figure out why you won't believe that I am who I say I am, and you are unlikely to be convinced no matter what I say, so fine, believe what you want.

Re: the uninsured and the cost of their care getting spread around -- who do you think pays for their care? Blue Cross? Aetna? The money has to come from somewhere. Why would a private insurance company pay for care of a patient it doesn't cover? I know, I know, because the cost of treating uninsured patients gets spread to the fees doctors, hospitals, etc. charge for insured patients -- but it also gets taken into account for medicare and medicaid spending (which subsidize the hospitals that provide a lot of care for uninsured) - so at the end of the day, it is everyone who pays for uninsured care.

By the way, Medicaid is state-funded, not federal. The government takes for Medicare. And Social Security and Medicare are NOT broke -- they are just expected to become insolvent based on the way things are going in this country.

And the 30-50 million takes into account multiple different definitions of uninsured -- i left a range just so people wouldn't start fighting about that too.

Look, the only reason I came here is to have a discussion about health care with people who think differently than I do. If I wanted to go and talk to people who all think the way I do I would 1) go to the Huffington Post or some site like that, and 2) be bored to tears while preaching to the choir.

I AM interested in why part of our great country seems so opposed to something I think is so necessary, and so I appreciate those responses above that are thoughtful. And as for the hysterical responses and the Big J's out there, whatever.

lurkertroll| 9.10.09 @ 3:17PM

ERIC,
republican plan? you want a republican plan. How about you open your ears, do a little reading and research instead of believing everything that the mainstream media puts on the 6 oclock news. the republicans have plans but are stuck in congress. The republicans have ideas but aren't allowed at the table to present them. But just for you because you asked so nicely i will just put out a couple of ideas that most conservatives are behind but somehow just keep ending up on the cutting room floor when the dems put forth their next bill.
1. Tort reform. hell even the most liberal doctors are for it. Texas managed to pass a loser pays system and its working for them, why cant we get something like that passed in the rest of the country.
2. Give individuals and small buisness the same tax breaks as big buisness. Or do away with the tax breaks all together, either way level the damn playing field.
3. Insurance across state lines. why should i have to pay more for health insurance than a person living in kansas for example. Just because of a line drawn on a map? even if its only 1 city block away I may be force to pay a higher premium for health care cause of the state in which i live?

The list of cost saving measures goes on and on. these are just a few small ideas that could be EASILY passed with little to no government intrusion. They are ideas that the american people are in favor of. And yet instead taking care of the small things that are relatively easily fixable we are headed down the path of a complete overhaul. Its the equivilant of instead of just changing the air filter, belts and oil, going for a complete engine overhaul even though the car was running pretty dang good to begin with.

on a side note, IF there are 500 billion dollars in waste fraud and abuse going on right now as Obama claims, how bout we start firing the people in charge of that and getting some of that money back right this minute not waiting till some legislation happens. If him and his people can identify hundreds of billions in savings then maybe they should get freaking going on that and use it to pay down the deficit

Big J| 9.10.09 @ 3:18PM

Eric:

I cannot offer a "Republican" plan, not sure there is one. But there are several "conservative" ideas that us "bozos" have mustered:

(Excuse the broken recordness of my post, please. Some people still aren't getting it.)

Tort reform: Maybe in the form of "loser pays" or limits on "mental anguish". Shoot, I have mental anguish over having to deal with liberal nuts on a regular basis, but that should not mean that I can sue them (or maybe it should....naw).

Abolish the "state line" mandate: My trade association had a wonderful insurance plan (very reasonably priced and great coverage), until the state attorney general figured out that it was through a New York broker. We all received a nice legal memo from the A.G.'s office stating that if the broker didn't administer the plan in Texas, there would be a lawsuit. We were promptly notified that our plan was being canceled. Ridiculous!

Allow the consumer to "cherry pick" coverage: I don't really want invetro or fertilization coverage, mental health coverage, treatment center coverage, etc. In fact, I don't mind paying for a doctor visit myself. I just want catastrophic care.

Take the burden of administration off of the employer: Let us get back to the business that we know (in my case, electrical contracting). My office manager and I spent several hours plowing through the different plans available, costs, benefits, etc., and we still get a 7pm phone call from an employee wanting to know "is this or that covered?". I DON'T KNOW! This would also eliminate the coverage being anchored to your job.

Health savings accounts: Allow Joe Blow to put his own money, pretax into an account without limits, that could be rolled over to the next year, and used strictly on medical expenses (co-pays, dental, eye, deductibles, prescriptions, etc.).

I will personally guarantee you that if these solutions were applied, you would see the bottom fall out of health care costs.

But that's not what this is all about, now is it? No, it's about government control over every aspect of our lives. They are not content to G.M., AIG, Fannie and Freddie, many banks, etc. There is 1/6 of our nations economy out there up for grabs.

Once they finish that off, it's the energy sector. After that, manufacturing (I believe that is already in the works with EFCA, but that's for another discussion).

Wake up, people. The pot is boiling, and only a few frogs are jumping out.

www.myteamusa.org

IdealogyIsASickness| 9.10.09 @ 3:22PM

Pardon the grammar but under the forum format I tend to type much in the same way that I speak, which at times can turn in to a rant. Sorry. With that apology let's clear a few things up because it seems that there is still quite a bit of confusion circulating. First off, this is NOT health CARE reform this is health INSURANCE reform. Next, there are no gov’t "death panels", end of life counseling is not mandatory, it's optional, just as it always has been, there are of course “death panels” run by private insurance companies and have been for some time, private insurance bureaucrats have been rationing your medical coverage since day one, it’s an essential part of their business plan and they actually get compensated more to deny you coverage. Also, under the proposed plans, the gov't only decides minimum coverage not maximum, any type of supplemental or primary private insurance you feel you need will still be available for purchase, of course the public option may over time put some of the worst run insurance companies out of business, but only if it provides coverage that is BETTER and/or CHEAPER, both of which should be welcome outcomes, and if it doesn’t then wouldn’t you just go out and buy a cheaper and/or better private insurance plan? Of course you would and would still be available for you. Next, doctor's salaries will not be set by the gov't and they don't work for the gov't, hospitals and doctors will still operate as private free market entities.

Illegal immigrants are explicitly NOT covered in the bill, read it for yourself (page 243, Sec. 246, http://energycommerce.house.go...../aahca.pdf). YES, illegals can cheat and lie to get covered and I’m sure they’ll try, but that is a separate issue and is true even today. We should catch the cheaters and prosecute them to the full extent of the law, but this is an insurance bill not a crime enforcement bill.

Medicare benefits are unaffected, Medicare Advantage (paying private insurance companies to administer Medicare-type benefits) has been on the cutting room floor for many years, it should be discontinued and those patients should be moved back on to regular Medicare because Medicare Advantage is a stupid idea that is only in place as another way for insurance companies to fleece the taxpayers, patients don’t lose any benefits and the system saves money.

And last but not least this reform plan is NOT FREE health insurance; you still have to pay for it, the difference being that the focus of the organization is on improving patient outcomes not on generating profit.

The cost of health insurance is a burden borne on the backs of American small businesses at the expense of American workers and families. Health Insurance Reform is Economic Reform. I have to be honest. My heart isn't in this to cover the ~45M uninsured, although that should be a goal. Why? Because we already pay for them when they show up at the emergency room. And please don’t tell me that the real number isn’t ~45M because we shouldn’t count people who don’t want insurance, such as young, healthy, males. Please, the reason they don’t want it is because they can’t afford it, any rationale person would want health insurance if they could reasonably afford it. They only number that counts is: who do we have to pay for when they show up at the emergency rooms sick and uninsured. That’s right, ~45M. Getting them on cheaper preventive care saves us all (i.e. the taxpayers) money.

The real reason I want health insurance reform is because the industry is not only corrupt but is a drain on the U.S. economy. Health insurance should not be a profit driven activity. Think of what we could do if we took the profits from health insurance companies and invested it back into our economy. Every dollar of profit that the health insurance industry pockets is a dollar that could be spent on CAPEX, R&D, worker salaries, improving patient outcomes, or paying down the national debt. In 2008, large health insurance companies WellPoint and UnitedHealth generated record revenues of $61B and $82B respectively with ~8% EBITDA margins. Why can't we do the same thing except that the 8% of sales is instead used to reduce costs? Why can't we create a national non-profit public health insurance organization whose focus is on improving patient outcomes and reducing costs not on generating profit? And why can’t it be COST NEUTRAL to the government (i.e. taxpayer)? Members will pay the costs through their premiums just as they do with private insurance. To me this is a no brainer. HEALTH INSURANCE DOES NOT ADD VALUE, HEALTH CARE DOES. Why are we protecting a corrupt industry that doesn’t care if you love or die? The health insurance industry does not have the right to generate a profit to the detriment of the citizens of this country and at the expense of all other American businesses! Health INSURANCE reform is ECONOMIC reform! If you are pro-business and pro-growth you should be pro-health reform.

So, you don’t want the gov’t to run it because you don’t trust the gov’t, fine. I get it. I don’t trust big business or big gov’t. So let’s create an independent panel to oversee the organization and ensure it meets its obligations and puts the patient first. This is already in the bill. The point is someone has to be in charge. Stop operating from a position of paranoia and start focusing on how we can improve the system. This isn’t about socialism versus individual responsibility. This is about getting a health care system that works. There is no slippery slope. There is only what we know doesn’t work, which is what we have now, and an attempt to make it better.

Frank| 9.10.09 @ 3:24PM

TJ - just saw your post -- I see your point re: the loss of liberty -- and I guess the major breaking point between those who have no problem with this and those who do is just how one values the security of guaranteed healthcare vs. perceived liberty of not having to get insurance etc. That's probably a deeply personal choice, but it does have societal ramifications when considering the cost of uninsured care.

It's sort of like the "sin taxes" -- I personally have no problem with them because I don't smoke, only drink occasionally, and think that overall, the over-consumption of tobacco and alcohol are responsible for many of the health problems out there. But I understand why there is discomfort with stretching this into a "soda tax" or a "fat tax" etc.. Certainly, obesity is a major health issue which = major socioeconomic issue, but for some reason that kind of tax makes me queasy.

Anyway - thanks to all those who have read and posted -- maybe I'll drop by occasionally as this whole thing evolves.

ster| 9.10.09 @ 3:28PM

“by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits,..."

Obama can't be THAT stupid, can he?
Can he?

/crickets

saleboter| 9.10.09 @ 3:29PM

It was a good speech for a campaign. Unfortunately the campaign ended 10 months ago.

ster| 9.10.09 @ 3:30PM

"So, you don’t want the gov’t to run it because you don’t trust the gov’t, fine. I get it. I don’t trust big business or big gov’t."

The difference:
You can sue that big business if they've done you wrong.

No such luck with government.

Philip Mella | 9.10.09 @ 3:30PM

Mr. Klein:

Excellent analysis of the president's efforts to revive his floundering health care reform plan.

Standing far from the political canvass, one is struck by Mr. Obama's disingenuousness, whether it's the patently false promises he makes concerning the plan's expense or the absurd notion that it's intended to keep private insurance "honest."

He would have advanced his cause and that of his liberal brethren in Congress if he had said the plan would be hugely expensive but that the goal of universal covereage is worth the cost.

Alternatively, he could have struck a more centrist course and talked about a restrained plan that truly retained market principles. That would have alienated his base but inhibited the upcoming mid-term bloodbath.

Most fundamentally, he has categorically misread the American people, in particular, when he called for a stop to the "bickering." Demeaning the oppositition's constructive criticism of a government take-0ver of a seventh of our economy is politically naive and will haunt him with losses of Independents and moderate Democrats.

Again, well written piece.

Philip Mella
ClearCommentary.com

ster| 9.10.09 @ 3:31PM

"and can't understand why we can't offer a viable solution. where's our plan?"

There are at LEAST five that I know of.
Never heard of them?

Blame the press.

ster| 9.10.09 @ 3:36PM

When Obama and all of the Democrats supporting this put THEIR OWN families on the "public option" for life, then... and ONLY then would I even consider it.

That won't happen.

Anthony Allen| 9.10.09 @ 3:40PM

The ignorance (hate) on this blog is amazimg. I'm so glad there are more people like me and less of "you people" in this country!!

Big J| 9.10.09 @ 3:43PM

IdealogyIsASickness (appropriate pen name, by the way):

You know, you're probably right. The insurance companies should provide their service free of charge.

So should those eeeeeevil oil companies. Just forget the profits, give us gasoline and heating oil for free.

So should the power providers. Why should they make a profit when so many people have a RIGHT to electricity?

Same thing with the grocery stores, the farmers, the electricians, plumbers, a/c guys and millions of other businesses in this country that risk their life savings in this currently evil attempt to make some money.

In fact, why don't we just do away with money all together. Pretty soon, there won't be any electricians, plumbers, a/c guys, gasoline, groceries, or any other commodity. The entire country will all be sitting around the campfire (if we can find any matches) singing cum-ba-ya and waiting on hope and change to fall from the sky.

You gotta be kidding me. You really believe that way?

This country is in worse trouble than I thought.

Matthew| 9.10.09 @ 4:20PM

Always the Obama supportors get whte math wrong... but also important to correct is the CNN Obama supportors who often claim miss-understanding statement regarding that the USA is a barbarian country and that Jesus would be in favor for Universal Health Care.

A CNN commentary wrote, quote:
"All Western Countries have Universal Health Care. Sweden, Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland etc. But us? No. Is it right one person can live simply because they have better insurance than another? How can we justify this is OK? ARE WE A BARBARIAN COUNTRY? Seems so.

And the IRONIC part is most Republicans claim they are such religious people! HA! JESUS WOULD BE FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE! All Republicans are such PIOUS HYPOCRITES!"

Correction #1 –Just because the USA has primarily developed private health insurance and we appear different than all Western Countries that have Universal Health Care. Such as Sweden, Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland, and Canada. First and foremost, all those Western Countries that have Universal Health Care have a much longer history of socialism practices than us. That alone does not make the US a barbarian country; on the contrary, why do you suppose that people from the world over are constantly flocking to the USA for a better life; it is not a barbarian life that they neither seek nor find…

Correction #2 –Jesus, if He was here, would not be implementing a Universal Health Care, as this commentary points out. Democrat commentary on CNN often site that Jesus would be in favor for Universal Health Care. The fact of the matter is that if Jesus were here, now, on the earth at this time, then the actual event occurring would be the tribulation and wrath of God upon all nations and those who reject Him - Universal Health Care program.

ATLmedia | 9.10.09 @ 4:43PM

Defending the 'added value' insurance companies bring to our healthcare system?
Kinda like the defending what crabs bring to lovemaking. If every dollar wasted on insurance was spent on something useful, say, healthcare/preventive health, we'd be at the top of the worlds healthcare outcomes, not 37th.
Cons are right that torte reform is needed, insurance Co. do provide (expensive) protection-correct Dr.Frank?- but its a red herring issue when you consider 2-3% of USA insurance outlays are paid for legal settlements.Our insuance execs would not be the highest paid in the world, if it wern't for protectionism written into law, starting at least back to the Nixon administration-which also created the
HMOs.Oy! Dems & Reps are both to blame for letting their opinions (& ill informed town hall screamers)be swayed by the 1.2 million dollars lobbyists spend DAILY to promote this parasitic industry.
NOTE:My wife, also in healthcare, strongly prefers filing for Gov't reimbursement, vs the nightmare of fighting for each Ins Co. dollar.

IdeologyIsASickness| 9.10.09 @ 4:47PM

Big J - Trust me there is no one on this board that is more pro-capitalism than I. Currently, I work in private equity and my firm invest $100’s of millions each year into private businesses and was a Wall Street banker previously. I understand the freedom to make a buck from hard work and innovation. I also understand that a completely free market always destroys itself through greed a corruption. The difficulty is in knowing when to regulate for the common good and when to let it alone to innovate and grow. Some things in this world need government’s, many times way to heavy, hand such as the FAA, FDA, public highways, national parks, national defense, etc. Could you imagine any of these critically important functions being run merely for profit? That would be an unmitigated disaster. On the other hand, government should not be in the business of manufacturing my computer, Ipod, breakfast cereal, or favorite movie because none of these products represents a necessary common good.

The way I see it is the answer of whether or not the government should or shouldn’t regulate is not a binary solution. Meaning it’s not either all or nothing but rather it’s a spectrum. At one end you have things that require little to no gov’t regulation, your car stereo or sofa, for example. Buy whichever product you please, and enjoy.

Towards the middle of the spectrum are things that have are more important but not quite life and death. Good examples are: Food, the government has strict rules on quality and all professional farmers belong to co-ops to control supply/demand and prevent huge price swings. These must adhere to strict government rules to prevent price gouging or undercutting. People don’t have the right to eat like kings but we don’t want to see people in this country starve so we help some people out and yes some people abuse the system ans should be prosecuted. Another good example of a mid-spectrum need would be Utilities, independent power producers operate all over the country but they are strictly regulated and should be because electricity is a critical necessity of modern life. Electrical prices are regulated and environmental protections are put in place. You don’t have the RIGHT to electricity (the Amish seem to do fine without it) but most people would classify it as a critical need and therefore the industry it is subject to more scrutiny.

On the far other end of the spectrum are things that A) is an unavoidable need and can be life or death B) whether we like it or not affects the wallets of every taxpaying American and is an unavoidable cost burden all other American business. These are the things that society as a whole would benefit most from if they were run as non-profit entities. Example: National Highway System, imagine what life would be like if only the rich could afford to drive or have anything delivered. A better example: Local Fire and Police Departments, what if 911 had to check to see if you were covered under your current plan before dispatching an officer to your home? These things are obvious common goods and it makes sense to run them as cooperatives.

What is less obvious is that health care is also a common good because we have grown accustomed to it being run as a profit driven activity. What is clear is that every one needs health care more and more as they get older and that even youngsters would benefit from health coverage because A) they get into car accidents etc. B) they get old eventually. When I step back and look at the issue holistically, forget the “I want to help people crap,” when I look at the issue from a purely economic perspective it would be cheaper as a society to make health insurance non-profit.

Each dollar of profit that the health insurance makes is not a dollar that they earned. It is a dollar that a sick individual or another American business had no choice but to fork over. Health insurance as a profit driven entity doesn’t add any value to society. Health CARE (i.e. your doctor and hospital) adds value to society. There shouldn’t be someone standing between me and my doctor that literally gets paid to deny me care. The health insurance industry is a detriment to all other American businesses. Every dollar of profit it makes reduces U.S. economic output by reducing the amount we could invest in other value enhancing activities like paying our workers more or buying another piece of equipment for the shop. And every dollar of profit the industry makes is literally a dollar that could have been used to help a sick or injured person get recover faster or help a doctor discover a new treatment.

It’s smart to be fearful of big government. It is also wise to be afraid of big business. This isn’t about socialism or individual responsibility. It’s about creating a uniquely American solution to a very challenging problem, and a solution that adds the most value to ALL Americans, not just the insurance companies. I want a system that works. This one clearly doesn’t. Sometimes the gov’t should stay the hell out, and sometimes they need to step in for the common good. In my opinion this falls in the later. I don’t care what side of the aisle an idea comes from, if it works let’s use it. Ideology be damned! I want solutions!!

Lee Ann Smith| 9.10.09 @ 4:52PM

I find it difficult to believe Mr. Obama could not bring himself to mention what tomorrow is. The anniversary of the worst direct attack on American soil. I had no relatives or friends in any of the buildings, but I will never forget the pure pain we watched day after day, week after week. I will also never forget our proud president and his personal reaction to his country and the people he loved being killed in such a senseless manner.

Please remember tomorrow. It would have meant a lot if Mr. Obama had done the same.

jr| 9.10.09 @ 5:06PM

ONE SHORT COMMENT. FRANK-- who says he is a doc and wants to learn why more conservative folks think like they do. Listen to the YouTube Robert Welch speech of 1974. Read the Constitution and the Declaration. Read the Federalist Papers and learn of America and learn what the people who migrated to the US in the early days were looking for. The current version of America is a cancerous growth that originated mostly with FDR and LBJ who were proved absolutely wrong about economics -- and what I want. Frank, if you are a doc, and I question that, tell us little people what is going on in Canada and the UK if you know. If you do not know, I suggest you find the answer. Lastly, if you value your freedom as a medicine man look quickly for soon you will be taking orders from a panel, commission, etc., appointed, in part by the leftist President, and his Sec. of Health and Human Services -- who will make up the rules. The Hippocratic Oath will be a has-been, replaced by rules and regulations that will result in cost savings. There will be a "death panel" because there is no other way to save his moldy skin from lies.

IdeoloogyIsASickness| 9.10.09 @ 5:07PM

Lee Ann Smith - Cut the dramatics and stop being ridiculous. You don't know what Obama does or doesn't feel about the anniversary of 9/11 simply because he didn't mention it a speech two days before the anniversary. And the notion that you would is either silly or you're a mind reader.

I respect your feelings and thank you for pointing out the terrible tragedy that occured. We would all do right to remember. But the anniversary is tomorrow, not today, and not yesterday. I am sure the President will attend a ceremony and say a few words tomorrow, as he should. Besides, he would never pass up on a great media opportunity.

Let's not jump the gun with dramatics an get our underwear all tied up in knots. Let's save our criticism for when it's actually warranted. There are plenty of other opportunites for that.

Rmm| 9.10.09 @ 5:19PM

lurkertroll
"so if you don't drive you don't need insurance". That is one way of putting it, but on the other hand there will always be those who find a way to circumvent the system, thus forcing those who play by the rules to subsidize those who choose not to. In that is the fallacy of any mandated attempt to force this system on the consumer.

onthow| 9.10.09 @ 5:25PM

"You paranoid wacked out right wing fools are clueless, you are in the minority, you will be further marginalized politically, and you indeed are lying stupid idiots. All of you will whine about this plan until you get cancer, get screwed by the insurance companies you claim to love, and die."
-- John Ruben

But we are much more likely to get screwed by what you love and admire: government. Cancer-survival rates are highest here in the U.S. under those eeeevil insurance companies: (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596)

So who is the paranoid fool Mr. Ruben?

IdeologyIsASickness| 9.10.09 @ 6:09PM

onthow - You're right to be fearful of big gov't. But I would argue that you should be at least as afraid of big business. The report that you cite in your link is important but it is from 2007. The more recent statistics can be found here http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/.....care.html. It says that indeed the U.S. it near the top in cancer survival rates but Canada is just as good and Cuba is actually better in some cases. It also says that the U.S. fares near the bottom , 24/30, for infant mortality. 27 worse of 30 in dying from childhood diseases and 50th in the world in life expectancy. So, US health outcomes clearly leaves much to be desired. To make matters worst, the US spends 2.3x per capita on health care than other industialized countries. And not only spends the most but covers the least for its citizens placing 141st out of a possible 142 countries when it comes to coverage, only Eritrea was worst. Here is the link http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/.....-rice.html

The system is clearly broken. Let's stop defending a system that doesn't work and start talking about solutions. This isn’t about socialism vs. individual responsibility. It’s about creating a uniquely American solution to a very challenging problem, and a solution that adds the most value to ALL Americans, not just the insurance companies. There is no slippery slope. If our history proves anything it is that America is smart enough to know when and how much the gov't should step in and when gov't should stay the hell out. That balance combined with American ingenuity and strong work ethic is the reason why we are the most powerful economy in the world. This is a time when the gov't needs to be more involved. Yes, we should be fearful and proceed with caution. But we should also trust ourselves to find the right balance between private industry and public regulation, which is what the public option is trying to do. It is NOT free health insurance for everyone; you still have to pay for it just like you would private insurance. And you can still buy private insurance to your hearts content. The key difference is that the public option will be focused on delivering healthy outcomes for patients not on generating profit at the expense of all other American businesses. If you are pro-business, and pro-growth you should be pro-public option.

Big J| 9.10.09 @ 6:30PM

Lee Ann:

Don't hold your breath regarding Obama "honoring" the 9/11 victims. Just go to whitehouse.gov to see what this administration thinks the day should be about.

"Green the block"
"A national day of service"

Sick, but sadly, inevitable. Democrats have always seen it as "political capital" for Republicans.

There is a place you can go to honor the victims of this vicious attack on American citizens:

http://project2996.wordpress.com/

And....

http://readmycents.blogspot.com/

The first site is a link to over 1000 bloggers who have taken on the task of honoring our fellow citizens who lost their lives that tragic day.

The second site is my tribute to David Lee Pruim of New Jersey.

We will never forget, no matter how hard the Dems try.

Big J| 9.10.09 @ 6:40PM

By the way, Ideology, stop sippin the kool aid.

You have ingested too much, and should purge your system, stat.

Go check out the beginnings of social security and medicare, and estimated costs at the time. Then go look at the level of underfunding they are experiencing, even as we speak. It seems the government is not really the strict steward of our tax dollars we would like.

While you're researching, I recommend checking out Canada, U.K. and New Zealand. They have excellent health care. So good, in fact, that Canadians are crossing the border, foregoing the "free health care" they get, paying for care here in the U.S. Last month, over 4,000 women gave birth in hallways, elevators and bathrooms in the U.K., due to a bed shortage. And I have family in New Zealand and can personally attest to the nightmares that go along with government deciding who gets what treatment and when.

Don't take my word for it, do the research yourself. And don't give me nonsense about child mortality. After all, we do have one of the highest rates of abortion in the world.

If our system is so bad, why do people fly from all over the world to experience it? I haven't heard of thousands per year flying to Cuba for their superior care.

"If our history proves anything it is that America is smart enough to know when and how much the gov't should step in and when gov't should stay the hell out. "

That's probably the most cogent statement you've had all day.

That time is NOW.

Nick| 9.10.09 @ 7:08PM

To go back to Mrs. Merrill @9:02 AM,

Ever heard of fruits and vegetables?
How about flour and eggs and butter?

Put on a apron and learn how to cook!
And quit whining!

ATLmedia | 9.10.09 @ 7:13PM

FACT CHECK
Yes it sounds terrible (& it is if your one of the 4000 moms denied a birthing room-most were simply in a room not made for birthing)
1) It was 4000 births in a YEAR
2)There were nearly 800,000 British births,last yera, so the 4000 are 1/2 of 1%
3)As for British infant mortality (& 36 other countries)they still have far superior statistics than the US.
-If you know any Canadiens you know when they get sick here they prefer to go home for any serious treatment
&
>BJ, there are lottsa things you nevere heard of
ie 4) Funny you should mention Cuba.
That desperately poor country, still manages to provide all its citizens w/ healthcare AND people do fly in from across central & south america to be treated there
4a) When I was in havana i heard lottsa gripping, but not about health care,hmmmm

Lisa| 9.10.09 @ 7:20PM

James, To your remark about what would Jesus do? He would say -Get thee behind me Satan. No one has said that they did not want insurance for the uninsured. We do not want the government to be in control of our insurance , our medical treatments, We just want them to stop wasting money, Let us live our own life. Its a cheap shot to bring religion into this. At least you did'nt say we are racist. Big J , I agree with you in that Frank is not a doctor. A real Dr. would not want to be told how to treat his patients. Frank, I dont mind being called the poster child- Ive been called worse things by better people. I am a nurse, so if you want to prove you are a doctor- let me hear some medical jargon.

Nick| 9.10.09 @ 7:23PM

For all of you people who think state mandated car insurance and health insurance are analogous, let me set you straight.

State legislatures can pass laws requiring auto insurance because roads are paid for by the taxpayers. If you want to drive on public roads you have to obey the state law.

This is also why the state can compel you to wear your seatbelt or a motorcycle helmet.

Next, not everybody has a car. Many people in cities don't have auto insurance because they don't own a car.

Now are you bleeding heart liberals going to argue that people who don't own cars pay auto insurance to make up for those who can't afford it?

Health insurance and car insurance are apples and oranges.

So congress can't compel me to buy health insurance.

Omar| 9.10.09 @ 7:31PM

"2)There were nearly 800,000 British births,last yera, so the 4000 are 1/2 of 1%"

Omar| 9.10.09 @ 7:33PM

"2)There were nearly 800,000 British births,last yera, so the 4000 are 1/2 of 1%"

Of which 750,000 are Islamic. One day we will bury you, infidels. Are women can give birth at home in the morning and be cooking baked camel at night.

Big J| 9.10.09 @ 7:34PM

" Funny you should mention Cuba.
That desperately poor country, still manages to provide all its citizens w/ healthcare AND people do fly in from across central & south america to be treated there"

I think I've heard it all, now.

I've been to 5 goat inseminations, 3 county fairs, but I ain't never heard no s**t like that!

Well, I take that back. I did hear the Black Congressional Congress lay a whole bunch of praise on Cuba, and all of the wonderful things there dear leader had done in the name of human rights and freedom.

Then there was that time that Michael Moore told the world that their system was better than ours.

But other than that.....

"When I was in havana i heard lottsa gripping, but not about health care,hmmmm"

Sincerely, I doubt it. Most people that speak there mind or try to practice the religion they choose get locked up, never to be seen again.

But what do I know? I should probably believe Michael Moore over that nonsense, huh?

Wow. I just thought there were some nuts posting earlier.

Big J| 9.10.09 @ 7:36PM

there mind = their mind

I blame that on Obama, like everything else.

Omar, that was funny!

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.10.09 @ 7:43PM

Big J. Boy are you in trouble! Someone suggested you are me...heh!

He ain't, folks. He is too nice and articulate.

I like to cut to the chase more crudely than Big J.
Our country is totally polarized at this point!

Three "poles" of polarization:
1. Some people know what is happening and love becoming beggars to our govt.
2. Some people plan on being the winners when govt. takes over every thing.
3. The only people that earn and risk to make a living for them and their employee/partners hate the idea of being a beggar.

It truly is that simple folks.

people who LET things happen.

people who MAKE things happen.
and
people who do not know WHATTHEHECK IS happening.

With all the electrons burned above, if decent people don't get off their arse, then the communists own your health, your fuel, and your children and grandchildren.
Frank and his "Bob" persona ilk are SO stupid that they haven't taken sides yet.
They still want to "discuss" stuff. Screw 'em, they are either stupid.....or in charge of rocking the cradle...until it falls.

NJK| 9.10.09 @ 7:44PM

Did this man help write the Health Care destruction bill, like he did the "stimulus?"

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot......t-led.html

Breaking: Dems Used Terrorist-Led Organizations to Write Stimulus Bill

IdeologyIsASickness| 9.10.09 @ 8:24PM

Big J - Glad to have you back in the discussion. You make a good point about Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid being severely underfunded. This fact is very true and is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. Let’s take a look at the numbers the net present value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value) of what we owe as the USA to cover our current and future obligations is ~$57 Trillion. Of that ~$36T is Medicare and a relatively smaller amount is Social Security at $6T. It is fiscally irresponsible for the country not to reform Medicare. If we don’t, we will no doubt go bankrupt. So, I am fully aware of the problem. (Source: Watch this video it’s made by a right leaning think tank and about our catastrophic fiscal mess http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_TjBNjc9Bo). I'll leave Social Security for another time and focus on Medicare. But as someone whose firm manages $10+ billion of pension money for a living I think I know a little about that as well.

Here is where your analogy jumps the shark. The public option is NOT a government entitlement program. It is NOT FREE health care. All participants would still have to pay for it just like they do private insurance except instead of caring only about profit the organization running the public option would actually care whether or not you lived or died. Private run health insurance companies do not. The public option is designed NOT to run up a deficit like Medicare. That is why it still cost money. I for one don’t ever want to be on a gov’t run health care plan like Medicare, if I can afford not to. The good news is the public option isn’t anything like Medicare. Medicare is for the elderly and poor that can’t afford to have coverage. The public option is designed to compete against the insurance companies in a way that keeps them honest. The public option is NOT Medicare.

Next, the reason Medicare and Medicaid are underfunded is because health care costs are climbing at a rate that is 3x greater than the rate of inflation. The US pays 2.3x per capita what other developed countries pay for health care. Costs are rising for a variety of reasons and one of the largest of which is a direct result of insurance companies denying care for preventive care and only covering acute illness after they fail at denying coverage. Acute illness is more expensive to treat than a lifetime of preventative care. If all Americans have access to affordable health insurance (not free) from the time they are born then the costs falls. If we run the public option as a not for profit entity then the cost falls. If the cost falls, which is the point of the public option, thus the cost for Medicare also falls. If you care about fiscal responsibility then you would be for the public option.

Thank you for pointing out Canada, UK, and New Zealand. They all have single payer (i.e. taxpayer funded) health care systems. The proposed public option is nothing even close to single payer, and that is the beauty of it. It is a UNIQUELY AMERICAN IDEA, although not that far off from what they have in Switzerland, except that our idea has much more competition (i.e. a healthy dose of free market capitalism). Your analogy is false at worst and poor at best. This is NOT single payer.

Next, people fly from all over the world to experience US medical care because they can afford too. It’s the relatively wealthy that you see flying over, not the poor. What is true. Is that the US is very good at treating acute illness (e.g. cancer, heart disease, etc.) that is because we have world class research institutions at our universities. Unfortunately, many Americans can’t afford care in their own country. In Canada or the UK or NZlnd, if you get cancer you are guaranteed treatment. If you fall and need a hip replacement you may have to wait six months but you are guaranteed treatment. Why would you have to wait so long? Because it is not life threatening and therefore you have to wait for a doctor to free up. The good news is you can be assured that eventually you will get your hip replacement. In the US, there is no such guarantee. If you fall and don’t have health insurance you are screwed and may live the rest of your life in pain.

Now if you are in Canada or the UK or wherever and don’t want to wait, and you have money, then by all means fly over to the US and get it taken care of. Yes, people from single payer systems come to the US for treatment. It is not because they won’t get treatment at home, or won’t get quality care at home, but because they are among the wealthy and can afford to do so. And by the way in 2006, Cuba was visited by 19,670 foreigners for the sole purpose of receiving medical care. And in fact, this accounts for a significant boost to their economy every year. It is actually well documented and is growing at 20% per year. Here is the link to a travel agent that specializes in these kinds of trips in case you want to visit: http://www.cubatravelusa.com/Health-Care Tourism.htm

Regarding the rationing of care, most people think they have great health insurance until they try and use it. When was the last time you visited your doctor for something serious? Ask around. Insurance companies are rationing care and have been since day one. Denying coverage is a fundamental part of their business model. Fact: Executives receive bonuses based on how many claims they deny. If the goal of the system is a healthy outcome for the patient then it's fundamentally broken. If the system's goal is to generate record profits for the insurance companies then it couldn't be any better.

Finally, high child mortality rates in the US have zero to do with abortions. Nothing, Zilch. The US is has a higher rate of death due to childhood illness than 49 other countries FOR CHILDREN OLDER THAN 5. We are in 5oth place. This is largely attributed to poor early childhood health care due to lack of health insurance. Poor kids are dying in America; it’s a sad but true fact. But they still are way, way, way better off than say, India.

I will concede that America’s high rate of infant mortality is not due to poor health care--We are ranked 24 worst out of 30—but due to lifestyle. Sorry, it is not due to abortion. It is actually more connected to the very opposite. American women are having children later and later in life and older age coupled with stress leads to pre-term birth and low birth weight = sick baby.

Bottom line: the current system is broken. It’s expensive. It is bad for economy. It is bad for our health. We aren’t getting what we paid for. I could give rat’s ass about socialism. I want a system that works and this ain’t it. You want me to stop drinking the kool aid. I would say to you “get your head out of the sand.” The health insurance industry does not care about you. They only care about profits. I don’t get it. Why are so many people fighting to protect them? I know why our Congressmen and women are ($$$), but why are ordinary Americans? The public option, while scary, is our best hope for real reform.

Conservativc Bob| 9.10.09 @ 8:39PM

Frank and others I think you miss the point on loss of liberty.
It is not about choosing to buy or not to buy insurance.
You and others make the comparison to auto insurance mandates which are an apples and oranges comparison. The insurance mandate as it relates to auto insurance does not protect me so much as it requires that I have the means to protect anyone I might harm n the operation of my auto. IT is liability insurance. I am not required to carry insurance to repair my care only the people or property I might damage in an accident. As previously stated these are state not federal regulations.
If you want to require that everyone participate that everyone must buy coverage then you must pass an amendment to the constitution. There is no provision in the constitution for government run healthcare.
This is the liberty being referred to, the constitution set out very clearly what the federal government can and cannot do. It further sets out how it can be amended over time should we see a need to do so. Every time we allow the federal government to act outside of its constitutional bounds we further erode our individual liberty.
No matter how noble sounding the argument you frame when you require that one group of individuals work a certain number of hours each week to pay for products or services given to some other group of individuals without the consent and agreement of the first group you have a loss of liberty.
There is no end to the absolutely necessary and morally required ideas that some seem to be able to find to fund with the labor of others.
On another front why must we totally overhaul the entire system all at once in a single bill?
Why the rush? Why not run test projects first on a small scale to see what works in theory and what works in practice. Why are so many items or ideas ruled out from the outset? Winners and losers are being selected. Is the objective really to correct the problems in the system or is it to serve an ideology.
I hear the refrain from politicians on both sides of the argument that everyone agrees we must reform the system. Where is the evidence to support that? That there are problems yes that they are so severe that we must destroy the current system and bankrupt the country in the process maybe not.
Why the attack on the insurance companies and doctors and the word profit? How else does anyone propose to find people motivated to spend 4 years of college 8 years of medical school and plus internship and specialty training who are capable and competent to perform the life saving procedures they perform? I want my cardiologist to be well compensated and highly motivated. When I wake him up at 2 in the morning and he rushes in and repairs damage that gives me 5 years and counting with my grandchildren, I want him highly trained focused and motivated. Profit, the return on the time and energy invested to gain the knowledge and skills that allow the dying to see another day. It is not a bad word or a bad motivation it is something earned through hard work and dedication.
Dream your utopian dreams but do not mandate that I spend my hard work and limited time to paying for them. I prefer a voluntary fee for service approach.

Oldtimer| 9.10.09 @ 9:03PM

An empty suit full of hot air and no health care plan, no facts to support the hot air and no logic to even show that the plan is needed. If he read history, observed the other socialist nations he would know that the "people" should write the health care bill not politicans. I only hope the nations economy can last until Jan of 2013.

Big J| 9.10.09 @ 9:10PM

"Here is where your analogy jumps the shark. The public option is NOT a government entitlement program. It is NOT FREE health care."

Where are you getting this info? The president doesn't have a plan. I stated that above. There are several in the house and senate, but the main focus has been on HR3200. Have you read it, or any interpretations of it?

Sorry for the caps, but.....

IT IS A GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED SYSTEM!

Let's start with that and go from there. All the liberal politicians are mandating it, will not vote for legislation without it (it may be called a co-op or some such, but a rose by any other name...).

The scenario you are dreaming of sounds pretty good, other than the whole "government control provides more competition, and it should be non-profit anyway" theory. I don't see how it's possible, but I only RUN (not work for, not work with, but RUN a $1 million company), not some massive multi-billion dollar trading company or whatever it is that you do that makes you an expert.

HELEN SABIN| 9.10.09 @ 9:37PM

You bloggers on this site make me laugh my head off! WHat great comments you make - the one about Pilosi's facial reaction being priceless is being forwarded onward! KEEP up the good work!!

DaveinPhoenix| 9.10.09 @ 9:46PM

Hey Max Baucus:

I want you to come to my house and TRY to collect a $750 tax/fine for my not having health care coverage. Just try, you effing communist waste of sperm who's never worked a day in his life. I dare ya.

small business guy| 9.10.09 @ 10:08PM

If the numbers being bandied about on the payroll tax penalty are true I know that our company, with about 1100 people in a pretty good plan, will dump those participants into the government plan just so we can stay competitive. I'd rather be a company that's still around offering decent-paying jobs with crappier benefits than a company that had to go out of business.

jake1492| 9.10.09 @ 11:01PM

The author reaches and reaches. He obviously has a vested interest in stirrup up the dirt.... but doesn't get very far.

The CBO found a $230 Billion increase in the deficit over 10 years. That's $23 Billion per year. That is $23 Billion on about a $2,500 Billion health care economy, or 0.1%. Or $23 Billion on about $700 Billion in federal health spending, or about 3%. This difference seems to be the thing that Obama was addressing the zero tolerance comment at. The bill isn't done yet. They're working on it.

Author makes much of Obama having changed position on mandated purchase of health care with a fine for not doing so. So.... would he respect Obama more for doggedly refusing to adopt a better idea than he promoted in the campaign in the interest of never getting an improved health care system? If the author's point is that Obama changed positions..he's right. If his point is that Obama is doing the wrong thing... the author is wrong.

The author finds the idea of a public opti0n competitor to private companies at odds with the idea that the existing medicare/medicaid structure has inefficiencies that can be improved upon to be hypocritical. It is not. There is not reason to believe that medicare and medicaid can be improved, and those improvements also applied to the public option insurance scheme. It's just an ideological sleight of hand by the author to suggest that both can't be done.

Universally available health care with real competition where private and government solutions have to prove their worth is the moral and economically justifiable thing to do. Right wingers don't like it because it forces their guy to prove it's often repeated claim that it is more efficient than a goverment department. Maybe it is... it probably can be.... but it should be made to prove it day in and day out, because it is also susceptible to a type of corruption where all the companies effectively conspire to fix prices. It is the government's job to oversee that competition.

There are a lot of cowards on the right who simply won't stand for real competition....despite pretending to champion it.

jake1492| 9.10.09 @ 11:07PM

smallbusinessguy,
why do you talk about your example company "dumping their people into the public option"?
If they dump them, they will be dumping them into the insurance market... in which one of the competitors is the public option.... and according to much religiously repeated conservative folk lore, no self-respecting private company could possibly be so inefficient as to lose a head to head competition with a government department. It doesn't seem possible that many would end up in the public option.

But perhaps the penalties for dumping coverage aren't high enough if you think the dumping itself would likely happen.

jake1492| 9.10.09 @ 11:11PM

DaveinPhoenix,
Right..... and never, ever go to the emergency room, or your kids, or your wife. Stand on principle good buddy. Be a big guy there. Have a nice day.

jake1492| 9.10.09 @ 11:24PM

ConservativeBob,
What is wrong with the system is that:
- there are 10s of millions of people without insurance,
- health care costs are running away and lot of it is due to collusion practices in an industry that needs to be better regulated by the government

Your auto insurance analogy where you point out that government mandate for insurance is for liability insurance to protect the other.... innocent party is partly right, but ignores part of the picture. Even your analogy relates to health care. In it, your fictitious driver running around with public liability only, may be skimming off the emergency room guarantee in the existing health care system. Furthermore, if he has a loan on the car, his financial provider is probably requiring him to carry insurance on his car. Analagously (since you are making this analogy to health insurance) , because we make a moral decision as a society to ensure that victims of accidents or in need of other emergency medical treatment cannot be turned away, we also expect them to help pay for it. Where they are not able to pay, we help them. The situation is a little different from auto, but logically very consistent. What those on the right often seem to forget is that we humans are moral as well as rational. The mandate is actually a conservative principle... to hold people accountable to help pay for what we morally choose to provide as a society.

Trotters = defeeted pigs| 9.10.09 @ 11:26PM

"I mean, seriously, if all but the most extreme of the readers here actually look into themselves and is honest, is there really any chance that Obama is trying to turn the USA into a totalitarian dictatorship?"

Yes. It is called the Turd Reich.

Osamas Pajamas| 9.10.09 @ 11:40PM

OBAMASCARE

Barak Hushpuppy OhBummer, "The Mistake of '08," is employing SCARE TACTICS to get his single-payer / universal / public-option / government-run socialized medicine / healthcare-hijacking fastened onto the backs of the American people. More Americans will die if we don't do it HIS way, he says ---- and we'll all be guilty of murder by turning OhBummer down.

Here he pontificates to the great masses of ignorant unwashed Americans, as he is inclined to regard them ---- who evidently don't trust this sneaky, sticky-fingered, smoothing-lying low-down skunk. Nope. Shake hands with OhBummer. Now count your fingers.

"I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than to improve it." MY ANSWER: Your plan is a hefty hunk of steamin' junk, there is no salvation for rot as ripe as this is.

"Well, the time for bickering is over," he said. "The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action." MY ANSWER: I feel exactly the same way, OhBummer, so knock off the scare tactics and propaganda, and the threats to the tea party and town hall protesters ---- and shut that lying hole in your face.

"I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last," he added. MY ANSWER: I am determined that you will be the last SOB to try to impose this crxp on the American people, too. You're just a heathcare hijacker and a predatory humanitarian ---- while pretending to be Santa Claus, wanting only to confer your "gift" on the American people ---- this is like getting a gift from Typhoid Mary.

Now, it is a mistake to suppose that OhBummer and the OhBummer Wrecking Crew mean to "reform" American healthcare. This is not reform, it is an out-and-out hijacking.

It is worth noting while the Marxist socialists seek to nationalize the entire system ---- such that all healthcare employees become government employees ---- Hitler's Nazis ["national socialists"] adopted another version of the same poisonous statism ---- "interventionism."

Under this system of total government control and dictatorship, the Nazis argued that they were merely "regulating" industry and that it continued to be "private enterprise under a system of private property."

But here's what the Nazis would never have tolerated publishing. A freeman owns himself, while a slave is owned by others. The first article of "private property" is "the self" --- and all other property earned or obtained by gift belongs to the individual.

Private property consists of the freedom of use and disposal thereof --- and because the Nazis and their philosophical partners-in-crime, e.g.: OhBummer, Nazi Pelosi, Dingy Harry Reid, Gaseous Al Gore, Mt Potato Head Biden, Hillary HotRod, and Sick Willie Clinton wish to "regulate" their betters, they effectively cancel private property ---- including the ownership of oneself.

Now, lads 'n' lasses! Go out there and kick over some bloody coffee tables, would ya?! And if OhBummer's thugs from the unions and Move On and Code Pink try to stop you, "get in their faces!"

Yi Ha ***
Minister of Information
Peoples' Capitalist Republic of Whizbangistan
*** Pronounced "YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!"

Matt Colorado | 9.11.09 @ 12:21AM

Love the PRICELESS comment. It just seems hard to believe that our President thinks he can speak in circles like this and get away with it.

If they continue to think they can loot our wealth to pay for this plan, I think we will need to call for a strike. Read more about it at www.stopthelooters.com

Bre | 9.11.09 @ 12:22AM

Lol that is quite truly I agree with such. Obama does have a slight problem believing that he can just up and recreate a whole new health care program while past presidents where unable to do so but liked to talk of the whole new reforming of health insurance.

UpChuck.Liberals| 9.11.09 @ 1:35AM

Having read most of the very reasoned comments so far, I must say it's been fairly civil.

That said, I trust 'The One' about as far as I could throw him. I can say the same for the other side. I've, sadly, been a Republican all my voting life, BUT have been leaning much more toward Independent Conservative for quite a few years (decades). Under Bush Jr. the Republicans went hog ... whoops should be, HOG wild with spending. IMHO they lost all credibility on the true Conservative front. It'll be a bitch for them to get it back, IF they care to.

Let me address a very simple solution to tort reform. Three frivolous law suits and you're out, disbarred, bye bye. If three strikes can work for criminals it should be the same for their cousins.

There is an old saying, if crime didn't pay, there wouldn't be criminals. Apply it where you wish.

Dianne Henry | 9.11.09 @ 3:04AM

Don't take my word for it, do the research yourself Bailey Button Ugg Boots . And don't give me nonsense about child mortality cheap ugg boots . After all, we do have one of the highest rates of abortion in the world.

Sultana Jaber | 9.11.09 @ 3:05AM

The public option is NOT a government entitlement program. It is NOT FREE health care. All participants would still have to pay for it just like they do private insurance except instead of caring only about profit the organization running the public option would actually care whether or not you lived or died. Private run health insurance companies do not. The public option is designed NOT to run up a deficit like Medicare ugg boots uk . That is why it still cost money. I for one don’t ever want to be on a gov’t run health care plan like Medicare, if I can afford not to. The good news is the public option isn’t anything like Medicare cheap ugg boots . Medicare is for the elderly and poor that can’t afford to have coverage.

Al| 9.11.09 @ 8:45AM

gee whizz Frank...you're just so masterful at posting links. what a sound foundation for moving toward the truth! all sources are authoritative! no sources are biased! quite the "intellectual" you are. take military health care - since I am in it and you aren't - I may have better insights into what was, after all, a simple appeal to authority you reasoned conservatives would accept in a knee jerk fashion.

your schtick is boring. we have seen it before. most of us do want health care reform.....we just don't want the snake oil that is being sold to us. moreover, we want a plan framed in context...real costs, real goals, real change - the whole thing is given away when the Prez continues to employ fluid language that really doesn't commit to anything - case in point is tort reform. the reality is that many of us are learning about amendments the Dem party is shooting down that directly contradict the first Prevaricator's assertions: case in point...an amendment with language stipulating that illegal aliens would not be the beneficiaries of taxpayer health care largess was voted down (by the Dems) with no process/agreement for recrafting the language. this is all a sham...it has been since the very beginning.

as an aside....if you are marginally informed about what is going on in defense and national security you would see the outlines of how we and millions overseas are being sold out. but you are just another ideologue pretending to be reasonable.

here are some real opportunity costs of this mismanaged (by the White House and Congress) health care fiasco:

- the country is growing more divided

- anecdotally...I am running into more middle aged and older people who want out of the workforce sooner rather than later. not the usual wistful retire at 56 once wealthy dreaming...they are in many cases accepting a lower standard of living to escape the impending disaster. they care less. their talents, services and skills are a net loss.

- you have to look closely..but the potential for violence to erupt is growing

- returning to health care...call it what it is intended to be: massive income distribution. again...anecdotally....I know many folks who favor the First Prevaricator's "Plan" precisely because they are uncovered. and why are they uncovered? in many cases that is a personal decision in which jobs that provided health coverage were foresaken to pursue a "life's dream" which has not proven as renumerative. in short...burden transfer.

there ia also a fundamental philosophical problems here - the case is often made that we as a society have a moral imperative to ensure/contribute to some minimum level of "standard of health" life (to employ an odd locution). there are also many among us who believe that there is a fundamental obligation to share in the burdens attendant to national defense - a societal need as well. as one who served a complete career in the military, I can assure you that Leftists/Liberals specifically and Democrats generally are nowhere to be found on the front lines - ever since the early 1970s for an obvious reason. so, what is really in play here is one minority element (politically) enforcing its value system on the rest of us - while intoning collective responsibility, moral responsibility, but very selectively. I can't convey in words how this moral leger demain angers me more than anything. the people in power presently are doing things that make the Bush incompetents pale in comparison........you just don't see it cuz you aren't interested enough or don't care.

the grand panorama isn't health care......it's the growing distrust of a President who we are beginning to learn is dissembling his intentions at best, lying at worst.

my best and final answer to you...pompous Dr that you seem to be...is Florida University. I know which side I am going to line up on when this really begins to disintegrate.

Lisa| 9.11.09 @ 9:23AM

Thank you Al. I could not have said it better. S.JABOR , Medicare is not for the poor- It is what has been paid in by one ,and becomes available when one starts drawing their social security. That is why the govt. has no right to screw with it. Medicaid is for the poor. All these people on welfare or any govt. aid program can get medicaid for their child, or if one is drawing disability from govt. than they get medicaid also. I am not trying to sound like a smart ass correcting that- I just think its important that we all know why the elderly has a right to be mad about this. Al if you are reading this ,I know you have heard that Obama has made remarks about getting his own army- That our army is not big enough. What does our military think about this?

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.11.09 @ 9:26AM

Splendid wrap up. Al

The reason I know that "Frank" is not a practicing doctor...he is too longwinded. No busy doctor would write such long blogs...heh, much less to we "unscrubbed" Heh!

Al| 9.11.09 @ 10:02AM

Lisa...I won't go down that road for obvious reasons...though I think what you are referring to is hypothesizing....:-)... that started during the Bush administration to use DoD forces domestically in the event of a massive, systemic breakdown due to financial calamity, etc.

I don't know what is going on behind the scenes.....but I can guess. and there are some telltale signs/whispers that the real power brokers are assembling the pieces to diminish if not eliminate the United States' presence as a global power operating in the "global cop" role it has more or less assumed since WWII. watch the long-term trends: what is happening with weapons systems procurement; how national security requirements are being re-prioritized; this whole government for contractor shift that is taking place with highly variable results; who the President sends his wife to speak to and why; the increased politicalization of the Flag ranks; the public statements (and more so not made) vis various international events (e.g., Iran versus Honduras); overall defense expenditures as a percentage of the budget....and many other things.

you're also going to have to work hard, on your own I'm afraid, to understand important trends so you can reflect on how the power structure is responding. for example, al queda is reported ot be expanding in Saharan Africa; there have been some studies projecting 50% unemployment for young Arab males by 2020; and others. it's very scary in some respects......particularly in an environment in which the holders of power do not believe there is heightened risk; accept that we are the core of the problem; believe that the united States has entered into a transition period of decreasing resources and power. the last may very well be true (which also implies other countries are increasing their global significance relatively - I think we all know who. talk to someone from the State Dept some time (if you can find an honest one) about what they are seeing globally).

My concern is whether there really is a forward looking plan and what risks the new elites are prepared to accept on our collective behalf.

UpChuck.Liberals| 9.11.09 @ 11:26AM

I don't believe that Palin is dumb. Perhaps not worldly but certainly not dumb.

Bush, well he's another story, he let some excellent opportunities to get things moving in the right direction slip. Cheney, I do believe cares deeply for this country and will/would do whatever is necessary to protect it and its Citizens. As time passes we'll be able to make a much more informed judgement.

Meanwhile the Republicans are shoving everyone and their brother out as possible 2012 candidates except the one person who is working to become more rounded in her experience. Maybe this is to keep some of the pressure off her, maybe this is because they don't think she's got a snowballs chance. Its going to be fun.

Pingback| 9.17.09 @ 5:09AM

The American Spectator : Time to Get Out the Iron | Images and all!! links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…\n \n \n Hello, I’m Mark Levin.\n \n The far left hates Spectator.org.\n That’s why I love reading it.\n Help spread their message.\n \n CLICK HERE and\n Donate\n Read more at http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/10/time-to-get-out-the-iron Tags: to love and die (0) Comments Read More Post a Comment Name: Email: Website: Comments: Anti-Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree Designed

Pingback| 9.19.09 @ 2:48PM

Lies O’Plenty -or- He Belies Truth « Get d'Clu links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…America, I hear you. He, of course, went in the other direction. This speech was no different than the 26 previous ones. Our president doesn’t hear us. Let’s get louder! http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/10/time-to-get-out-the-iron The President has NOT welcomed conservatives to the table. There has been little – if any – bipartisan input into the health care bill. Conservatives have some…

Pingback| 10.4.09 @ 12:38AM

Similac Advance Milk-Based Infant Formula with Iron, Ready-to-Feed , 6 – 8 fl oz - St links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Bluray 720p Ac3 2audio X264-chd rapidshare … The Crossed Pond » Sea Stories: Iron Mike Waffle Iron Brownies « The Brownie Project FREE MUSIC: Iron v1.0 – Google Chrome Clone The American Spectator : Time to Get Out a Iron How To Season Cast Iron Cookware : TipNut.com green86 says "Parent's coice milk based tot regulation is a … Similac EarlyShield Ready to Feed Formula 2 oz – 8 pk…

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|111 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|124 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|61 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|106 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|3 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|68 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|17 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real

Quin Hillyer | 4:15PM

Good New Book: ‘Precipice’

Quin Hillyer | 3:07PM

The Spectator’s Spectacular: Most Read Stories, May 12-May 19

Patrick Ryan | 12:41PM

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.18.13

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 5.18.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Voter Fraud Affected Election Results in Missouri

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

Political Hay

Time to Get Out the Iron

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (163) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Big J| 9.10.09 @ 6:58AM

Michael L. Hauschild| 9.10.09 @ 7:43AM

galen| 9.10.09 @ 7:49AM

jd| 9.10.09 @ 7:56AM

RustyG| 9.10.09 @ 7:58AM

Ivan Brandt| 9.10.09 @ 8:14AM

Williams| 9.10.09 @ 8:16AM

Theresa| 9.10.09 @ 8:19AM

Hippocrates| 9.10.09 @ 8:19AM

Lisa| 9.10.09 @ 8:33AM

Susan| 9.10.09 @ 8:36AM

john galt| 9.10.09 @ 8:43AM

JP| 9.10.09 @ 8:43AM

Robert Rosencrans| 9.10.09 @ 8:47AM

KevSeel| 9.10.09 @ 8:47AM

Pat Spooner| 9.10.09 @ 8:47AM

john ruben| 9.10.09 @ 8:55AM

Michael L. Hauschild| 9.10.09 @ 9:00AM

Cindy Merrill| 9.10.09 @ 9:02AM

Moe Blotz| 9.10.09 @ 9:05AM

Ammo Guy| 9.10.09 @ 9:07AM

Frank| 9.10.09 @ 9:14AM

Etiquette Man| 9.10.09 @ 9:23AM

Etiquette Man| 9.10.09 @ 9:31AM

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.10.09 @ 9:31AM

Pingback| 9.10.09 @ 9:34AM

SHOCKMAN| 9.10.09 @ 9:42AM

Trotters = defeeted pigs| 9.10.09 @ 9:56AM

GringoBob | 9.10.09 @ 10:04AM

Frank| 9.10.09 @ 10:07AM

Tenn Slim| 9.10.09 @ 10:10AM

Pingback| 9.10.09 @ 10:16AM

sclemens| 9.10.09 @ 10:21AM

RichS| 9.10.09 @ 10:22AM

Joe| 9.10.09 @ 10:28AM

Joe| 9.10.09 @ 10:31AM

Etiquette Man| 9.10.09 @ 10:32AM

Etiquette Man| 9.10.09 @ 10:33AM

JP| 9.10.09 @ 10:44AM

Ralph L. Franco| 9.10.09 @ 10:48AM

Ammo Guy| 9.10.09 @ 10:50AM

Robert| 9.10.09 @ 10:54AM

Logan| 9.10.09 @ 10:55AM

JP| 9.10.09 @ 10:57AM

Frank| 9.10.09 @ 10:59AM

Frank| 9.10.09 @ 11:00AM

Pingback| 9.10.09 @ 11:05AM

Joe| 9.10.09 @ 11:05AM

Appleby| 9.10.09 @ 11:08AM

Pingback| 9.10.09 @ 11:08AM

Frank| 9.10.09 @ 11:10AM

Ryan| 9.10.09 @ 11:26AM

jack| 9.10.09 @ 11:28AM

Shamus| 9.10.09 @ 11:32AM

JP| 9.10.09 @ 11:34AM

Pete| 9.10.09 @ 11:34AM

JP| 9.10.09 @ 11:38AM

JP| 9.10.09 @ 11:42AM

rmm| 9.10.09 @ 11:43AM

Anthony| 9.10.09 @ 11:44AM

James| 9.10.09 @ 11:48AM

Northern Rebel| 9.10.09 @ 11:49AM

Dagny Taggert| 9.10.09 @ 11:49AM

sub| 9.10.09 @ 12:07PM

Big J| 9.10.09 @ 12:13PM

Dustoff| 9.10.09 @ 12:20PM

Pingback| 9.10.09 @ 12:32PM

Oldefarte| 9.10.09 @ 12:36PM

Owen| 9.10.09 @ 12:42PM

Frank| 9.10.09 @ 12:57PM

JP| 9.10.09 @ 1:02PM

Lou Filliger| 9.10.09 @ 1:04PM

Frank| 9.10.09 @ 1:06PM

Frank| 9.10.09 @ 1:10PM

Kate| 9.10.09 @ 1:35PM