Yeah, having a plan means invading a nation that was of no threat for us and then staying for six years with ... no plan. Nothing like reading the nutter blogs. If it aint about a birfer, a death panel or a teleprompter, you guys pretty much are out of ammunition.

Staying in Iraq WAS the plan. It is an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the heart of the Middle East. And we won't be out of it before The One (PBUH) is long gone from the White House.

I watched it... he was in his "lecturing Dad" mode for the most part, occasionally slipping into "condescending know-it-all", and finishing up with "sincere preacher man".

I laughed, I cried... it was phenomenal.

humbert humboldt, how about sticking with the topic which is Obama pushing health care/health insurance changes on a country that needs jobs and economic resuscitation. And don't try that lame line about fixing health care with government intervention will fix the economy. It's a stupid argument and even if it were not, health care is 1/6th of the economy, we need the other 5/6ths to get cranking.

Comparing his plan-that-isn't to two entitlement programs that are trillions of dollars in the red? I guess that's appropriate.

I liked how he claimed the "public option" wouldn't need any subsidies, then bragged it up by comparing it to public colleges, some of the most subsidized institutions in existence.

I said it all last year after hearing him speak, with this simple observation:

Obama will give you everything you ever want or need. And a pony! Unless you're rich or Bush, then we're going to eat you because you're evil.

But he had no suggestions as to how to actually PAY for giving everybody everything they want. Other than eating the rich. And Bush. (News flash from reality--there aren't nearly enough rich to go around, nor, despite their fecundity, enough Bushes.) At a ballpark guess, tripling the discretionary federal budget would be insufficient to fulfill the promises made. But he shore do talk purty.

The Reader's Digest version of the speech: America needs to come together. Our bitter divisions are everyone else's fault. Especially Bush and the rich. We'll eat them, Obama will wave his magic Hope-Change™ leadership unity wand as we dance around the bloody bonepiles singing Kumbayah, and then we can all have everything we want and live happily ever after.

I wrote that a year ago last February, BEFORE The Won doubled the national debt. Nothing has changed.

I knew you'd all have sour faces over here.

What the president is saying is that our system is broken. We pay more and get less than any system in the developed world. To do nothing is disaster. To lie about what has been proposed, and there are bald-faced lies, is counter-productive.

I know Republicans don't want to give this president the biggest progressive advance in health care since 1946, but some of their claims should make them hang their heads in shame.

And yet, Republicans lost all sense of shame years ago.

Still, for Tully to bring up doubling our national debt, after Reagan, Bush and Bush, reaches new lows.

So Lipiwitz, what is causing the high cost of health insurance? Government already runs half the nation's health care between medicare, medicaid and schip, and they pay too low, so the costs get raised for everyone else, then there's the expensive malpractice insurance that the lawyers like John Edwards have caused to increase astronomically due to their junk science astronomical lawsuits, and add to that the government regulations on insurance - not allowing across state lines, and mandating all kinds of coverage people don't need. And what is going to help get the costs down while maintaining quality and money for research and development? More government? Not!

Having checked a number of blogs tonight I really must say that the astroturf crowd is out in force right now.

Jayne,

I'm for tort reform. I believe if you bring a suit and lose you should pay the other person's legal fees, etc.

But in places where malpractice claims have been limited (see Texas), costs have not come down.

Insurance companies use malpractice as the boogeyman without ever addressing their systemic flaws.

Do the research and you'll see this isn't the silver bullet.

David L Terrenoire! I remember that guy. What was your thing? Timetravel, or urine or something? It was something weird like that. You and Dude would get along just great.

As for the topic at hand, I don't think that our government should steal from citizens. That's just me.

brando,

Very nice. Urine and time travel. Yeah, that's me. I'm crazy. And yet, I'm the one who is trying to discuss this from an adult place.

As far as the government stealing from us, that makes a nice teabag slogan, but what does it mean? Do you object to all taxes? Should your police and fire departments be private businesses or should they be there for all of us, regardless?

Do you think our soldiers should be paid and provided for according to the whim of our individual citizens?

Do you think the Bush tax of 36 percent is OK but 39 percent is treason?

If you think Social Security is stealing from you, are you prepared to put up Grandma in the spare room? Because my tax money is most likely supporting people in your family and, frankly, I'm OK with that.

So let's try to move on beyond bumper stickers, brando, and I'll hold back on the urine and time travel.

Now, which one of us sounds like a loon?

Actually, you sound like a couple of little kids on a playground.

Obama: Forced collectivism is the only answer to any problem.

No David. I meat that literally. Not as a slogan. I know you think that such a position is loony, but it isn't.

I literally mean that I don't think it would be good if the United States Government seized all goods and wealth from the free citizens of our country. Could we at least agree on that?

Nope, we can't. Cause you stated it's loony.

Agree to disagree, I guess. You can't agree now.

As for the Teabag fixation you're stuck on. Um. Cut out the weirdness. I've heard about this behavior from some other Liberals, but I don't understand the need to proclaim that private stuff on a forum about socialism/healthcare/the President/insurance.

Of Course Michelle is scowling mad. Wednesday at 8PM is the conga line dance at the White House. You know, the weekly party where they eat one hundred dollar a pound beef on the peoples dime while whining about the serf taxpayers and how stingy they are with 'their' money.

Can lawyers be sued for malpractice?

IMHO, the highest cost of lawsuits isn't in the awards themselves. The cost is in the insurance and the added tests and procedures to provide CYA for doctors and hospitals.

Reduce the potential for ruination and these costs may come down, but until tort reform is seriously addressed, these costs will remain high. One big jury award and the premiums will go up and additional tests will be ordered.

There is a fundamental lapse in the logic of conservatives who claim on the one hand that the government is inefficient and cannot deliver services as well as private industry and, yet, argue that virtually any form of "public option" in health care will kill off private health insurance. If a government supported or run health care option will be as poorly run as is claimed, how can it possibly be so much better than private health insurance options that it will kill off private insurance?

What the whole debate comes down to is the fact that private insurance companies, being for profit businesses, are skimming as much as 14% off the top to cover administrative costs, executive salaries and create profits for their stockholders. To do this they must ration care and charge their customers significantly more than they pay out to doctors and hospitals. You can eliminate waste and reduce malpractice lawsuits all you want, but there is no way to substantially reduce the cost of health care and make it possible for those who are uninsured to get health care coverage without the amount that is being taken out of the system off the top by insurers. And there is no incentive for private insurers to reduce how much they take off the top without there being an alternative in the marketplace that will cost less.

If a government run or supported option or co-op cannot provide health care more efficiently or effectively than private insurance companies, it will fail-which will serve to prove the point that conservatives have been making for years and open the door for them to reform health care to their liking. If, on the other hand, a public option is able to provide health care effectively for less, either private insurance companies will have to adjust to compete with that option or they will fail-which conservative, who constantly talk about letting "the marketplace" determine economic outcomes, should also welcome.

It is strange, then, that conservatives, who constantly harp about trusting "the marketplace" are so reluctant to trust "the marketplace" when it comes to dealing with any form of public option being introduced into the health care marketplace.

Is some sort of tort reform necessary to relieve good doctors of the onerous burden that malpractice insurance has become? Yes. Should waste and abuse be rooted out of the entire health care system. Of course. Should the AMA be required to allow more doctors to be educated in US medical schools? Certainly.

But until the amount that is being taken out of the system off the top that has nothing to do with the actual delivery of health care is reduced and the growth of that amount is limited, it will be impossible to reduce the costs that Americans have to pay for health care, let alone extend basic health care to those who presently cannot afford to pay for coverage and rely on services that those who have health insurance are currently paying for.

I know that the very notion of limiting the profits that can be made by any area of private industry is painful for conservatives, but the rising cost of health care must be controlled if the rest of the economy is to be allowed to grow. And the way to bring about the biggest savings is to offer a lower-cost alternative that is presently not available in the marketplace. If private industry is not willing to provide that alternative, then there is no alternative but for the government to arrange for one to be created before costs get even more out of control.

wow: not only does Ear Leader lie, but so do his minions......

i never saw that coming. %-)

What is clear is that the fate of the “public option” seems painfully unclear.

master2cents said:

There is a fundamental lapse in the logic of conservatives who claim on the one hand that the government is inefficient and cannot deliver services as well as private industry and, yet, argue that virtually any form of "public option" in health care will kill off private health insurance. If a government supported or run health care option will be as poorly run as is claimed, how can it possibly be so much better than private health insurance options that it will kill off private insurance?

Ok, for the umteenth time we'll explain this to the Obamabots how it will work. A subsidized government option will offer coverage at lower rates than comparable private policies. Employers will be told that if they don't provide insurance coverage meeting certain government guidelines they will be penalized; a way to avoid this is to cease offering private coverage and just pay a government penalty estimated to be 8% of payroll costs - a cost typically less than offering private insurance policies to employees. So, the government incents employers to abandon private coverage in favor of dropping that benefit and forcing its employees to buy into the government option.

As to saving money by shifting to a government bureaucracy, you must be kidding. Perhaps you have missed the reports that show government employees are paid a premium wage and higher benefits than comparable private sector workers. Whatever "profit factor" is removed will be made up for in higher wages and bonuses for the government managers. As for advertising costs, the state of California paid a firm $500MM for a 4 year contract in essence to market S-CHIP healthcare policies to potential customers.

Pointing to the expertise demonstrated by government run operations such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the VA hospitals, the post office, Amtrack, etc. doesn't exactly make taxpayers confident the "won't cost taxpayers a dime more" promises will hold up.

I literally mean that I don't think it would be good if the United States Government seized all goods and wealth from the free citizens of our country.

brando,

Sorry. I shouldn't have said you sounded loony. No, this sounds more like paranoid delusional.

We're expected to believe a Democrat-controlled Congress, with deep divisions in its ranks, will put together a bill that will keep everything the same for those who have health insurance through their jobs, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA; mandate coverage of pre-existing conditions; ban caps on coverage; mandate coverage of routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies; offer health insurance to 30 million uninsured; provide tax credits for small businesses; painlessly mandate coverage for the young healthy uninsured; provide hardship waivers; provide choice and competition; keep insurance companies honest; avoid taxpayer subsidies for public option plans; keep out illegal immigrants; not pay for abortions; and not deny care to the elderly because of cost-benefit analyses, all while not adding one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future.

Buckle up, folks, and prepare for Government-run utopia!

"Sorry. I shouldn't have said you sounded loony. No, this sounds more like paranoid delusional."

Mental health insult? This is... how did you put it in an earlier comment... "discussing in an adult place"?

You lose. Thanks for playing.

"Sorry. I shouldn't have said you sounded loony. No, this sounds more like paranoid delusional."

Mental health insult? This is... how did you put it in an earlier comment... "discussing in an adult place"?

You lose, David. Thanks for playing.

Apparently to the LibTurfer I'm reaching "new lows" by pointing out that I predicted a full year and a half ago that a President Obama would spend in a way to make drunken sailors look penurious, and was right about that. Not sure why detaling inconvenient reality is a low, much less a new one, at least to anyone but True Believer who has already substituted their zealotry for any critical thinking skills. Fact remains, Obama is still following his campaign strategy instead of switching to the messy business of actually governing.

CY nails it -- the President did not offer a plan, just a wishlist phrased as promises, just as he did during the campaign. He's going to achieve these miracles with fairy dust and a magic wand.

If there's so much waste and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid to pay for all of this, why isn't he taking on that waste regardless of his wishlist?

If preventative care is such a cost-saver, why do study after study show that 80% or more of preventative care fails cost-benefit testing, and actually costs more in the long run? (Oh never mind, once we get a rationing board in place we can fix THAT!)

Where'd those other 17 million uninsured go, back over the border?

If we're going to pump up demand for health care services by covering everybody, where's the extra supply going to come from to meet that demand? We're already woefully short of primary care physicians, and they don't appear overnight. The high cost of medical care and most of the excess cost growth in in the US is directly due to inelastic demand and limited supply, so where's that new supply going to come from? Without it increased demand can have only two effects, shortages and/or price boosts.

One could go on, but arguing with LibTurfers is pointless. They can't deviate from their programming and accept no input from anyone but their programmers.

Balthar,

Mr. brando brings out a time travel and urine attack, I suggest that if he thinks Obama is out to steal all his stuff he's may suffer from paranoia and you find equivalent maturity in those two statements, am I reading that right?

And then you cap it off with "Thanks for playing?"

Tell me, Balthar, do you actually read these comments or do you have quips circa 1994 just on hand at Control V? Because "Thanks for playing" was mildly amusing back when the Internet ran on gerbil-power, but today it suggests a laziness, maybe even a deficiency in wit, sir.

I suggest you try harder.

"time travel and urine attack" What? It's not an attack to disagree with your fixations. And if you really feel it was an attack, then why did you agree that's what you're about?

Is this not your confession? "Urine and time travel. Yeah, that's me. I'm crazy."

I know.

You're an integrity violator to say that I have a mental illnes. It's objectively false. At least you can admit that you're crazy. Just don't forget it.

I suppose it's a catch-22, trying to get a full-blown admitted crazy to understand. But you can't blame me for trying. I'm a giver.

It is strange, then, that conservatives, who constantly harp about trusting "the marketplace" are so reluctant to trust "the marketplace" when it comes to dealing with any form of public option being introduced into the health care marketplace.

There would be no problem with the "public option" if four basic rules were followed:

-- The public option must not receive any taxpayer money whatsoever

-- The public option must pay its own bills from its own revenue, rather than "borrowing" buildings, utilities, collections, administration, and other functions from the Federal government

-- The public option cannot write off any debt or deficit to the Federal government; if it doesn't make enough on premiums, it has to raise them.

-- The public option itself must pay taxes on its revenue

In other words, the "public option" would be forced to abide by the same rules as private insurers and pay the same expenses.

It would tip over and die within a year.

"Yeah, having a plan means invading a nation that was of no threat for us and then staying for six years with ... no plan."

Did you try to defend stupid with something you think is stupid?

Stupid!