President Obama Healthcare Speech

[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.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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.

I would say that we haven't had a real free market in a very long time in terms of healthcare. Not allowing companies to compete with one another outside of state lines is not competition, it's regulation impeding competition. Curently, the healthcare industry is one of the most heavily regulated in the entire country, outside of financial industry.

So we've seen two industries have significant difficulty/failure, healthcare and financial, they are are the two most heavily regulated in the country...

Meanwhile things like food (beyond the FDA) and especially clothing (items everyone needs) have been the some of the least regulated in the country and we've seen their prices remain relatively cheap and accessible over very long periods of time. (I'm not comparing their complexity, only their oversight and government intervention relating to success and affordability.)

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.

I don't see how a government option automatically answers any of those questions either. If the government option doesn't reduce costs, and the CBO says it won't reduce costs but increase them even more, will we switch to a free market system after spending an estimate $1 Trillion to establish the government program?

How will the government defined the uninsured? How will they define who gets treatment, especially if we see a continued drop in the number of available doctors? What if survivability odds for life threatening diseases drop to levels we see in other socialized nations? Will that be a failure, or deemed acceptable? If we don't like any of these things that government healthcare imposes, will we even have a choice or an alternative anymore or will our only recourse left be to petition our government to change it?

Here's a great question: If the government really wants competition, why will they only fine company's without insurance 8% of their revenue, when companies pay FAR more than that in providing healthcare to employees? Isn't that encouraging companies to drop care to save costs? Isn't it easier to do so when there is a government option waiting to gobble up their employees?

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.

I don't disagree with the problem, and quite honestly this debate is beyond recognition of the problem. It's the solution that is causing the divide.

[TheGame]

I don't see how a government option automatically answers any of those questions either. If the government option doesn't reduce costs, and the CBO says it won't reduce costs but increase them even more, will we switch to a free market system after spending an estimate $1 Trillion to establish the government program?

The problem is, if we switch to a free market first, there's no telling what the results will be. Giving companies more freedom and money doesn't nessicarily mean they'd use it to the greater good of the country. Ask George W. Bush.

I'd rather see more controlled and planned out results, then just taking the leash off of private insurers.