President Obama Healthcare Speech

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Sorry for the confusion, but the support part of my a questions was about government health care, not President Obama approval.

Oh, well then you already know how I feel about that. I support a public option for healthcare insurance, as long as its an option and not manditory.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

Oh, well then you already know how I feel about that. I support a public option for healthcare insurance, as long as its an option and not manditory.

The question was as follows:

If you are a firm supporter, what does he need to say to convince an unconvinced and somewhat angry/distrustful populace?

I agree with Bond, though, it doesn't look like he's going to take a stand on a government option. But the problem is, if he's not going to take a stand on a specific type of plan, how is he going to lend specifics to paying for health care, etc. like his administration officials have been saying he would?

I fear this will 45 minutes of the same rhetoric of generalities (lower costs, cover more people, increase competition) that he's been saying for months, as if to say to everyone that they simply haven't been paying attention, and I don't think anyone on either side of the issue want to see that.

If he breaks out personal anecdotes of people suffering in the current environment, I think we can be confident he really misunderstands the current discussion. It's not about whether or not to address health care; all sides agree it needs to be addressed. It's about how to go about addressing it and if his comments are "pull on the heart strings" I think he will cause more frustration and exasperation as he'll show himself to be behind the curve.

Once again, we'll see.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

If you are a firm supporter, what does he need to say to convince an unconvinced and somewhat angry/distrustful populace?

My reply would be the same.

Explain to people how his idea for healthcare reform will both increase coverage and lower costs. I will not accept one without the other.

Plus he needs to explain to people how much of their tax dollars are being spent on healthcare. Explain to them that when a person goes to the doctor without insurance and gets those ridiculous bills that they can't pay off, that tax dollars ends up taking the tab. Explain that when someone goes bankrupt because of health issues that tax dollars get wasted too.

He needs to explain WHY healthcare reform is needed even from a financial standpoint, and how his plan will result in lower taxes in the long run.

He also needs to draw a line in the sand, there's been enough time debating. He should mention that he'd veto any bill that doesn't increase coverage and lower costs. Reassure people that he's not going to pass anything that's not real healthcare reform.

[TheGame]

Once again, it was a very good speech. (In my opinion) He did everything I requested, on some level or another. However, as I said before, actions speak louder then words.. So lets see what really happens.

[Vampyr]

Missed everything but the last 15 minutes, so I have no idea what he really talked about. Just came into him saying medicare wouldn't go away. Going to have to find a replay somewhere.

Did he push for a public option of some sort? Most of what I heard had to do with helping families who already have health insurance have more reliable and affordable coverage, helping people with pre existing conditions, and helping people not go bankrupt if something serious happens.

These are all really good things, but the part I saw didn't mention anything about people who can't afford health care at all.

Republican response was ok, but a little pretentious, and this guy did that same thing that Bobby Jindal did where they talk to you like you're a 5 year old. 3 out of their 4 points were good, but they quickly glazed over the 3rd point where they said "everyone should be able to afford health care."

How do they plan on doing that? No matter how much you increase competition and decrease malpractice claims, there will always be people who simply cannot pay for health insurance without jeopardizing another part of their life, unless government aide is available.

[TheGame]

Vamp you missed the majority of the Speech, he touched on the public option in a strong way, and talked about people who couldn't afford healthcare. go to www.msnbc.com it should have the full video there.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by TheGame

Vamp you missed the majority of the Speech, he touched on the public option in a strong way, and talked about people who couldn't afford healthcare. go to www.msnbc.com it should have the full video there.

That makes me happy to hear. I guess your 1% came true? :P

[Professor S]

I haven't seen the whole speech yet, only the highlights from each major news network, but if what I saw is a microcosm of his whole speech I'd say it's the least successful of any speech he's made to date. He had an opportunity to come across professorial, which he is very good at, but instead he took the route of the patronizing school marm lecturing those who "just won't listen". And from what I saw, the reasoning behind the existing bills were simply repeated, and not expanded on or clarified, especially when it comes how to REALLY pay for it. The efficiency/cost reduction thing is not a new argument, nor has it been a convincing one. Also, I HATE the idea of forcing people to get healthcare who do not want it, and that would be a deal breaker for me as I find that a bit too Orwellian for my tastes.

I was happy to see the idea of tort reform addressed though, however briefly. And I think he mentioned opening up national competition, which would be a GREAT thing, but I only heard that in pundit recap, not from the horse's mouth.

But from what I saw, his answer still remains to hamstring private care with added regulations/mandates overall... and then compete with it, and I think that's rife with opportunities for abuse and quickly regulating private care into extinction.

But then again, that's just from what I saw in the highlight reels. I'll add more thoughts as I find the entire speech later this week.

I didn't see the Republican response, but I'm sure it was condescending, if recent history is any indicator. I prefer John McCain's overall healthcare response, converting the contentious un-insurable via government organized, but not funded, risk pools to sell to private insurance to reduce their risk by injecting volume into the equation and lower costs overall. That would 100% necessitate nationwide competition, though, if we wanted it to work. Personally, I think his plan driven organically by market forces is as comprehensive as I've seen and borderline brilliant.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I didn't see the Republican response, but I'm sure it was condescending, if recent history is any indicator. I prefer John McCain's overall healthcare response, converting the contentious un-insurable via government organized, but not funded, risk pools to sell to private insurance to reduce their risk by injecting volume into the equation and lower costs overall. That would 100% necessitate nationwide competition, though, if we wanted it to work. Personally, I think his plan driven organically by market forces is as comprehensive as I've seen and borderline brilliant.

It does sound like a good plan. I'm just very skeptical since the free market has failed epically thus far, and would prefer something that has a more concrete set of results.

Like, what if we do that and it doesn't reduce costs like we thought it would? Or if the costs are reduced, but not as significantly as we needed them to be for the plan to be successful? And who gets to define what the word "uninsurable" means? I have a very bad feeling it would work along the same lines as the "expected family contribution" for sending a kid to college.

If you've ever looked at those, they are hilariously high, and not at all what a family can reasonably afford without selling their home or something.