Obama Speaks Loudly But Carries a Small Stick

posted by John Nichols on 09/09/2009 @ 8:06pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (196)

Subscribe Now

President Obama spoke loudly but carried a small stick Wednesday night, when he outlined what's left of his healthcare reform agenda in a rare address to a joint session of the Congress.

Noting that "it has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for healthcare reform," the president told skeptical legislators from both sides of the political aisle. "I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last."

That was one of several takeaway lines of the night.

Another, delivered to members of the House and Senate who have just returned to Washington after an August of brutal town hall meetings, was: "The time for bickering has passed. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action. Now is the time when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together... Now is the time to deliver on healthcare."

The president was equally muscular when it came to addressing "scary stories" and "bogus claims" about "death panels" and threats to Medicare that have been spun up by insurance industry front groups in order to thwart meaningful reform. Democrats loved it when Obama told the spin doctors -- in the House and Senate Republican caucuses and their media echo chambers -- that: "If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out."

But for all of its rhetorical flourishes, this was not a to-the-barricades address by a president who was prepared to battle not just the lies about his plan but the compromises that would make universal healthcare the dream deferred.

When it came to the task of offering the explanations, arguments and details that have been so hard to come by during a frustratingly unfocused debate about how to develop a functional healthcare system for a country where tens of millions of Americans have no insurance coverage and tens of millions more are underinsured, Obama remained disturbingly vague.

He restated his determination to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to Americans with pre-existing conditions. He proposed portability and flexibility. He pledged to bar corporate caps on the amount of care that is provided the sick. And he decried insurance company abuses that even Republicans seemed to agree--at least if applause is any measure -- are "heartbreaking" and "wrong."

These consumer protection initiatives could well form the foundation for the legislation that Obama says he is determined to sign this year, since it certainly did not sound Wednesday night like the president was going to fight for the sort of broad reforms that really would provide quality care to all while control costs.

"It makes more sense to build on what works... rather than to build an entirely new system from scratch," Obama said, making all too clear his determination to retain the private for-profit system that has failed so miserably to deliver universal care but that has succeeded so monumentally in delivering profits to insurance and pharmaceutical corporation stockholders.

Obama still talked about "options" and "choices." But he suggested that they would be offered mainly by insurance companies that would enjoy "incentives" -- i.e., new streams of taxpayer dollars -- if they agree to abide by consumer-friendly regulations and come up with strategies for covering more of the uninsured.

The government might step in to help, Obama suggested, but he painted such interventions as temporary rather than permanent. When he spoke of a "public option," as he had to in order to keep progressive Democrats on board, the president still said: "I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business."

The "public option" was positioned as something akin to a consumer protection initiative for "those without insurance," a sort of welfare program that would attract only about five percent of Americans and that would be funded by premiums rather than tax dollars.

Robust? Not hardly.

The president's language, so strong at the start, went soft when he focused in on the public option. He even suggested that he was open to alternatives favored by Republicans and some moderate Democrats. That was something that Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona, picked up on when he said after the speech: "(The) president needs to be more direct on what the public option means and what it will do for the American people."

The congressman warned that, "President Obama was elected to bring change and progress. I fear that if my party and the President do not appreciate the mandate the American people have given us, the people will lose confidence in the idea that they can vote for change and get what they voted for."

Grijalva's point is well taken.

Throughout the speech, Obama talked about "the plan" he was presenting. But a lack of clarity or line-in-the-sand commitments to pursue genuine reform of a system he described as "full of waste and abuse" created the most amusing moment of the night.

Obama was not going for laughs when he uttered the line "while there remain some significant details to be ironed out..." But he got them.

What the president was getting at was the message, repeated several times during the speech, that he was still searching for some kind of middle ground that will satisfy "those on the left" and "those on the right -- even if that means supporting medical malpractice "reforms" that would make it harder for those who are injured by bad doctors, nurses and hospitals to hold the wrongdoers to account.

What Americans who have waited "nearly a century" for reform were left with was the prospect that the "great unfinished business of our society" -- as the late Edward Kennedy described the pursuit of universal healthcare in a last letter to Obama--might remain unfinished under a president who means well but does not necessarily fight well.

Comments (196)

Obama (and I paraphrase): "I don't seek to put insurance companies out of business"

check

&

mate.

maybe the next democratic president....maybe....

Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 8:10pm
...and can someone explain to me, 'cause I didn't really get it from his speech, how Obama, if he got what he wanted, would plan to pay for his plan? (he doesn't really expect us to believe that it'll pay for itself by lessening "waste" does he?)

Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 8:13pm
If there is so much waste and fraud in Medicare, and so well understood that the amount can be determined so accurately, then pray tell, why hasn't the government done anything about it all these years? Isn't fraud illegal? Don't we have a Justice Department?

Posted by sntauri at 09/09/2009 @ 8:27pm
The "Ambiguity of Hope Speech " ...

and indeed as John Nichols points out so well ... it was indeed ...

Posted by mmckinl at 09/09/2009 @ 8:33pm
Obama definitely spent more time bringing home the message that everyone has to have insurance by federal mandate, just like the auto insurance laws - the exact Reaganesque misery I've predicting in these web log pages for a couple months - than he did discussing the so-called "public option".

All-in-all, I don't believe that he is convincingly behind the public health insurance option and I think that his health care reform is really going to just be not just a bailout but a magnificent jackpot for corporate insurance maggots and the pharmaceutical industry.

In other words, he is telling his most ardent supporters that he wishes to be a single-term president and lame duck through the rest of his first term. With legislation like what is about to emerge from his presidency like that on health care, we are better off with a hamstrung president and "bickering" congress, together unable to so much as pass a law honoring the birth date of Shirley Temple let alone any more of his "reform".

Posted by syfriendly at 09/09/2009 @ 8:35pm
I'm pretty sure Americans voted for the ambiguity of hope speech...

Maybe I was watching a different campaign.

Posted by TexasFlood at 09/09/2009 @ 8:36pm
If there is so much waste and fraud in Medicare, and so well understood that the amount can be determined so accurately, then pray tell, why hasn't the government done anything about it all these years? Isn't fraud illegal? Don't we have a Justice Department?

Posted by sntauri at 09/09/2009 @ 8:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--never fear...obama is here!

Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 8:36pm
syfriendly: "In other words, he is telling his most ardent supporters that he wishes to be a single-term president and lame duck through the rest of his first term."

--couldn't disagree with you more...the country is full of voters like Mask, who will vote for obama no matter what because the "alternative" (i.e., the republican candidate; 3rd parties are out for him and many other voters) is too much to stomach. obama doesn't need to win his (or their vote)...he's just trying to win the soft, gooey middle.

syfriendly: "With legislation like what is about to emerge from his presidency like that on health care, we are better off with a hamstrung president and "bickering" congress"

--couldn't agree with you more...obama's a joke.

Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 8:40pm
I'm pretty sure Americans voted for the ambiguity of hope speech... Maybe I was watching a different campaign.

Posted by TexasFlood at 09/09/2009 @ 8:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--no, I voted for the Obama that ran...not the empty suit who stood in front of Congress today.

Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 8:41pm
Oh well...

Charlie M.

Posted by cmsandia at 09/09/2009 @ 8:44pm
I wonder if the CBO scoring has already priced in the "amnesty" effect on HCR cost? After we make 20 million illegals instant citizens, it will only take 90 days for them to get 70-90% affordability credits. That's only about $200B, a mere pittance, but good accounting suggests it should be considered.

Posted by sntauri at 09/09/2009 @ 8:53pm
Lol so that just means you bought into whatever cult of personality that sprung up around him. He never really tried to squash it obviously.

He never once ran as anything other than what he is. A centrist democrat. Maybe that's his biggest fault, he told the truth as a politician.

People that voted for him by ignoring that, have no one to blame but themself.

Posted by TexasFlood at 09/09/2009 @ 9:00pm
"Obama Speaks Loudly But Carries a Small Stick"

�rale.......

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 9:02pm
This is just unbelievable.he basically said get lost to all who believe in health care reform.on fucks news channel neither o,reily nor carl rove showed much objection to his so called plan and both seemed to feel ok with david axelrod,s new charade.

Posted by excalibur999 at 09/09/2009 @ 9:05pm
Dear Mr. Nichols

As I listened to Mr. Obama's speech, an old saying came to mind: "A camel is a horse designed by a committee." In this case, moreover, it seemed that the committee was stacked with conservatives.

And to make matters worse, the President made errors of presentation, e.g., denying specific falsehoods raised by "deathers" & such. George Lakoff has pointed out for years that doing so reinforces the frame denied. (One of his examples is Richard Nixon's statement that "Your President is not a crook," which served to strengthen the idea that he was. See Lakoff's _Don't Think of an Elephant!_.)

This is one unhappy but, I admit, unsurprised camper.

Posted by fragen at 09/09/2009 @ 9:05pm
TexasFlood: "Lol so that just means you bought into whatever cult of personality that sprung up around him. He never really tried to squash it obviously."

--soooooooooooooooo easy to say this now, so easy.

TexasFlood: "He never once ran as anything other than what he is. A centrist democrat. Maybe that's his biggest fault, he told the truth as a politician."

--told the truth? game...set...match!

TexasFlood: "People that voted for him by ignoring that, have no one to blame but themself."

--if someone's willing to accept your first two falsehoods; then obviously they have to accept your last...

Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 9:06pm
""I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last," ...

Can we take him seriously ?

Posted by mmckinl at 09/09/2009 @ 9:08pm
the exact Reaganesque misery

Posted by syfriendly at 09/09/2009 @ 8:35pm

ah, the gipper....

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 9:10pm
Hey if insurance corporations will stop getting medicare comp subsidy kick backs, they can no longer deny per preexisting conditions, can't drop coverage, can't limit cost reimbursements, gov imposes premium limits, national coops are created, immediate gov safety net for the needy, public safety net in 4, ... so how again are the insurance exec's going to continue making their outrageous profits? And this is a bad thing?

Then the big pharm already agreed to cut their profits by several billions, ...

Sounds like healthcare reform to me.

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 9:12pm
Yes it is easy when I see all the fools unable to separate reality from whatever fantasy they've concocted in their little heads.

Don't get upset with me because you've been duped. I just hate seeing you so flustered all the time.

Posted by TexasFlood at 09/09/2009 @ 9:14pm
Maybe I was watching a different campaign.

Posted by TexasFlood at 09/09/2009 @ 8:36pm

aren't you still watching it?

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 9:14pm
Sounds like healthcare reform to me.

Posted by amabOfools at 09/09/2009 @ 9:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 9:15pm
After we make 20 million illegals instant citizens,

Posted by sntauri at 09/09/2009 @ 8:53pm

what on earth are you talking about?

why would they wanted to outlaw the subsubminimush wage?

this is just elephant bait.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 9:18pm
Yes it is easy when I see all the fools unable to separate reality from whatever fantasy they've concocted in their little heads.

Don't get upset with me because you've been duped. I just hate seeing you so flustered all the time.

Posted by TexasFlood at 09/09/2009 @ 9:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--you remind me of something bob knight once famously, and notriously, said "if rape is inevitable, you might as well lay back and enjoy it"

not coincidentally, Indiana U. didn't fire him until much later...when he was no longer producing consistent final 4 teams and National Titles.

also not coincidentally (given your handle)...he ended up later at Texas Tech

Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 9:19pm
he told the truth as a politician.

Posted by TexasFlood at 09/09/2009 @ 9:00pm

that's right!

that's why he changed ben bernanke for ben bernanke at the fed and appointed a gs man at treasury instead of the usual gs man.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 9:21pm
http://tinyurl.com/kp5xv6

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 9:22pm
see,

paulson has republican hair while geithner has democrat hair.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 9:22pm
he told the truth as a politician.

Posted by TexasFlood at 09/09/2009 @ 9:00pm

that's right! that's why he changed ben bernanke for ben bernanke at the fed and appointed a gs man at treasury instead of the usual gs man.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 9:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!

Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 9:23pm
so how again are the insurance exec's going to continue making their outrageous profits? And this is a bad thing?

Then the big pharm already agreed to cut their profits by several billions, ...

Sounds like healthcare reform to me.

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 9:12pm

Yeah those outrageous 3% profits. Imagine any law firm willing to accept a 3% profit each year?

Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 9:24pm
What does Rahm Emanuel have on Obama, that Obama rolls over & allows RE to sabotage the central plank?

This will be a double victory for the rightwing GOP & its medic industry Owners, no real change + Obama alienated from his core supporters. Looking better all the time for a '12 Dem primary challenge & then a GOP opponent ready to spend whatever it takes.

Posted by sloper at 09/09/2009 @ 9:25pm
Hey if insurance corporations will stop getting medicare comp subsidy kick backs, they can no longer deny per preexisting conditions, can't drop coverage, can't limit cost reimbursements, gov imposes premium limits, national coops are created, immediate gov safety net for the needy, public safety net in 4, ...

Sounds like healthcare reform to me.

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 9:12pm

but it smells like smoke and mirrors.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 9:26pm
Tonight we watched Obama the politician.

He gave the finger to his base and his opponents.

For the middle that he counts on for re-election, he simply lied.

In other words, Obama demonstrated tonight that he really learned his craft well in Chicago politics.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 9:26pm
Posted by amabOfools at 09/09/2009 @ 9:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 9:15pm

No you be a fool-- fool!

Ok, you're just an obvious idiot. All blather no substance.

But hey this is the USA. There's room for you types too.

Obama will insure you too!

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 9:27pm
but it smells like smoke and mirrors. Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 9:26pm

I utilized my other organ a little further in my skull to evaluate his ideas;>

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 9:31pm
Yeah those outrageous 3% profits. Imagine any law firm willing to accept a 3% profit each year?

Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 9:24pm

larry,

siding with for profit health insurers is just plain tacky.

humans are greedy, and if there's A LOT of money on the line, corrupt decisions are inevitable and you know it.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 9:31pm
then a GOP opponent ready to spend whatever it takes.

Posted by sloper at 09/09/2009 @ 9:25pm

we'll see.

mr. obama is proving very useful.

bwahahahahaha!

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 9:33pm
siding with for profit health insurers is just plain tacky.

humans are greedy, and if there's A LOT of money on the line, corrupt decisions are inevitable and you know it.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 9:31pm

I'm not siding with them. I'm correctly calling the idea of a 3% profit as outrageous, outrageous itself.

I know you don't like the idea of people making money, but it's what allows the world to continue.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 9:37pm
In other words, Obama demonstrated tonight that he really learned his craft well in Chicago politics.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 9:26pm

karl rover move over,

and let blahma take over!

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

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 9:41pm
I'm sure it's only natural, considering the previous 8 years, to anticipate the low life to rise to the top.

But we will see.

It's not like there's a cHeney manipulating healthcare intel, a Ruinsfeld cakewalking across the ER or a Condi farting a pharm mushroom cloud...

But hey, no matter how new con repub insanity may be contagious-- I'm not the one seeing it.

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 9:42pm
Sounds like healthcare reform to me.

POSTED BY HSUBFOOLS AT 09/09/2009 @ 9:12PM

but it smells like smoke and mirrors.

POSTED BY FROSTY ZOOM AT 09/09/2009 @ 9:26PM

I utilized my other organ a little further in my skull to evaluate his ideas;>

POSTED BY HSUBFOOLS AT 09/09/2009 @ 9:31PM

a message, come as it may, through the ears or the nose, is still processed in the same(ish) place.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 9:44pm
a message, come as it may, through the ears or the nose, is still processed in the same(ish) place. Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 9:44pm

Yes, but when you heat it up there's smoke. Thus you smell it burnt.

If you're cool, no smoke to fog up your reflection...

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 9:49pm
"Obama will insure you too!"

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 9:27pm

Hmmm... I just watched the speech too. Sounded more, to me, like;

"Obama will mandate I insure myself with the same companies, who's policies forced the healthcare debate in the first place."

Posted by Malcontent at 09/09/2009 @ 9:49pm
Mal,

You miss my very first post?

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 9:51pm
Posted by amabOfools at 09/09/2009 @ 9:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 9:15pm No you be a fool-- fool! Ok, you're just an obvious idiot. All blather no substance. But hey this is the USA. There's room for you types too. Obama will insure you too!

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 9:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--I'm for universal health care. amabOfools, you're for the sell-out wishy-washy crap that was just sold to you as "reform"...

so who's the fool?

Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 9:51pm
--I'm for universal health care. Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 9:51pm

Who is not being covered?

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 9:54pm
a message, come as it may, through the ears or the nose, is still processed in the same(ish) place. Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 9:44pm

Yes, but when you heat it up there's smoke. Thus you smell it burnt. If you're cool, no smoke to fog up your reflection... Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 9:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--time to use your "noodle" and realize your cute "word-play" is severely failing you...

Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 9:57pm
I know you don't like the idea of people making money, but it's what allows the world to continue.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 9:37pm

well then, you know wrong.

i make money, larry, sheesh.

i do wish we had real money, mind you.

before i jump into this mosh pit of grumbling, i read a number of financial sites. and this whole health care "business" reeks of greed.

greed certainly is icky, n'est-ce pas?

making money from others' misfortune is a sin.

we as humans should take care of each other by pooling our resources in a way that limits to the greatest possible extent our ability to game the system for monetary benefit.

and, of course health practitioners should be remunerated well, insuring (p. i.) that they enjoy comfortable lives for the invaluable service they provide.

larry,

if even the unassailable reputation of doctors is tainted by the blight of unnecessary procedures,

how are we to trust the corporate manager to look out for our best interests?

oh, i forgot, you sell insurance.

never mind.

here read this:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/20 09/08/obesity-linked-to-brain-shrinkage-erectile-dysfunction.html

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 9:58pm
"Obama will mandate I insure myself with the same companies, who's policies forced the healthcare debate in the first place."

Posted by Malcontent at 09/09/2009 @ 9:49pm

beware the grandfather clause!

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 9:59pm
Magic will settle for a `victory' that will aim for:

1) Steps toward resolving the pre-existing condition quandry almost all people have empathy......this affects most everybody and/or their immediate families at some point in the life cycle. I can see some kind of FDIC-like program where every insured and insurance company, pay a small surcharge to go into a vast pool to cover pre-exist. ailments.

2) The beginnings of national Tort Reform to bend the medical cost curve while easing his lawyer buddies' transition to a lower revenue curve as well.

IF these two were the foundations of his plan, he would've received standing ovations. These are the major concerns of the middle 80% of Americans!!!

Posted by Happy at 09/09/2009 @ 9:59pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 9:51pm

I saw it. I am still dubious.

What happened to pushing single payer (because it's the best idea) and leaving "public option" as the politically viable fall back position.

The president doesn't make laws. But, he's supposed to set the bar for debate. He seems to be leaving that to his political opposition. I can rationalize no other reason than selfish, political expediency for his behavior.

Texasflood is half right (if smug). I saw his vote on the FISA immunity bill. And still pulled a mask and voted for him anyway. My disillusionment is not reality based.

Posted by Malcontent at 09/09/2009 @ 9:59pm
Who is not being covered?

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 9:54pm

by whom?

the wheeellllllllss on the busssssssssssssssssssssss

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 10:01pm
--time to use your "noodle" and realize your cute "word-play" is severely failing you... Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 9:57pm

Explain how?

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 10:01pm
Who is not being covered? Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 9:54pm by whom? the wheeellllllllss on the busssssssssssssssssssssss Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 10:01pm

By whom is no one being covered?

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 10:03pm
I can rationalize no other reason than selfish, political expediency for his behavior.

Posted by Malcontent at 09/09/2009 @ 9:59pm

do you have any idea what a president costs these days?

and good help is so hard to find.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 10:05pm
Where does Van Jones get his health insurance now? I don't know if he was employed long enough by the gov't to qualify for COBRA. Just think, he might be able to go to the exchange and qualify for affordability credits!

Posted by sntauri at 09/09/2009 @ 10:05pm
What happened to pushing single payer (because it's the best idea) and leaving "public option" as the politically viable fall back position. Posted by Malcontent at 09/09/2009 @ 9:59pm

But there isn't a wait for a trigger. They're doing an immediate Safety McNet, until the public option is in place in 4.

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 10:11pm
actually, sntauri,

you should be quite worried

about the deflationary effects of

all the people whose unemployment insurance will soon run out,

many of whom will be forced into financial ruin by illness.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 10:12pm
Salem Radio Networks along with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) delivered an unprecedented 1.3 million petition signatures to Congress today OPPOSING the government takeover of health care. At 61,000 pages long it is the largest petition ever delivered to Congress.

Thats one network in one state, so if the Obamanation and Demoncrats DON'T pay attention they will see their replacements coming up Pennsyvania Ave. soon and very soon!

Posted by BigPasture at 09/09/2009 @ 10:18pm
I was always an Obama supporter from the very beginning. BUT... I believe if Hillary had won, things would look a whole lot different. The right wing would still be histrionically insane and instead of racist/Nazi hysteria we would see extreme misogynistic hysteria. However, I think Hillary would possess a set that Obama apparently does not! There is NO WAY after what happened in 1993 she would allow to lose heath care reform without a strong public option, that didn't look real similar to single payer. Plus I never heard her say she was for this Kumbaya non-partisan relationship with the right. I'm afraid on this one, Hillary would have been the boxer we need to get this through. Oh and I am sick of the Pundits already with the "He hit this out of the Park!" WRONG� He dropped the ball, again!

Posted by BHammonds at 09/09/2009 @ 10:19pm
"..., until the public option is in place in 4."

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 10:11pm

I see. That must have been in the part where I went to pee.

I only heard the parts where he said; "I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last." and "Now is the season for action." and "It makes more sense to build on what works... rather than to build an entirely new system from scratch." (like medicare?)

Then he said, "I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business."

But I missed the part about the 'determined' call for 'action' to 'build on what works' immed...er...in '04.

Posted by Malcontent at 09/09/2009 @ 10:22pm
I believe if Hillary had won, things would look a whole lot different.

Posted by BHammonds at 09/09/2009 @ 10:19pm

oh, lord...

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 10:24pm
Why was everyone expecting Obama to hit the insane new con repubs over the head with emphasizing the public option in 4 years without a trigger?

Just saying the truth that non-citizens weren't guaranteed healthcare-- drove an all grown up Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina, pointing angrily at the president, blurted at the top of his voice: "You lie!"

Imagine if you will if Obama came out all progressive like from the start!!! Why most of the new con repubs would have been taken away in strait jackets.

Sure Obama did the lowly repubs a favor by not agitating their insecure and fragile last thread with sanity.

Ok, that could've been glorious...

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 10:26pm
The president said, his door is open to a better idea.

Here it is. This medical cost crisis did not come over on the Mayflower. There was a time when medical insurance premiums were affordable. The bill for the average 4 day stay in an American hospital was not always $20,000.

The problem began on July 1966 when Medicare and Medicaid became effective. Both were terrific programs. The elderly and poor no longer had to worry about their medical bills.

But it also relieved the medical providers from having to consider the ability of the old and poor to pay. They could order as many tests and scans and procedures they liked, and charge top dollar, because it was the govt who would be paying for those without fat wallets.

That caused the skyrocketing in costs, and the zoom in in the shares of stocks related to the medical industry, and the necessary rise of insurance premiums. Everything went into fast forward except the doctors who stopped making house calls.

The cure is a natural new constraint on the lavish recourse to medical options and on costs. The solution has two steps:

1. The medical industry must publish all iits charges, the way a supermarket has price labels on everything on its shelves. And just as supermarkets send out circulars with their latest prices and sales, so that shoppers can compare between stores, let the medical industry make available monthly the charges of doctors, hospitals and pharmacies within metropolitan areas and even neighborhoods.

2. Encourage the public to shop for everything from a flue shot, an x-ray, a D&C by giving the patient a share in the savings with the insurers. It will lower the costs of insurers and force medical providers to become competitive.

Posted by Pirovano at 09/09/2009 @ 10:27pm
No, Obamanation speaks loudly and carries a really BIG teleprompter!

Posted by BigPasture at 09/09/2009 @ 10:30pm
Sure Obama did the lowly repubs a favor by not agitating their insecure and fragile last thread with sanity.

Ok, that could've been glorious...

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 10:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--"favor" is the absolute correct word...but not in the sarcastic way you're using it. voters like you are why obama doesn't need to make real "change" (remember that word repeated ad infinitum last fall?)...you'll vote for him in the next election no. matter. what.

Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 10:39pm
That must have been in the part where I went to pee. Posted by Malcontent at 09/09/2009 @ 10:22pm

Ok what you missed:

"Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. The insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear � it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up.

Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But 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. IIt would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities."

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 10:39pm
No, Obamanation speaks loudly and carries a really BIG teleprompter!

Posted by BigPasture at 09/09/2009 @ 10:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--right! how many times can a guy trip up on his OWN speech (and still be regarded by so many as "articulate"!...

SPEAK to us Obama, don't READ at us!

Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 10:40pm
And the rest of the story:

"It's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn't be exaggerated � by the left, the right, or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and should not be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. 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. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.

For example, some have suggested that that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others propose a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice. And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need."

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 10:41pm
Eat your veggies and get plenty of sleep everyone, cause it looks like America is always going to be a crappy place to be sick :(

Posted by thefullaunty at 09/09/2009 @ 10:43pm
Obama: "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 gov't has done a splendid job so far...I'm sure it won't be VERY costly to make sure the insurance companies play fair...

Hey Saddam...you can stay in power...but you have to PROMISE, PROMISE, PROMISE...no more killin'...mmmmkay!

Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 10:45pm
Good call, John.

Katrina and Big Ed and Maxine Waters and Joan Walsh and Barney Frank and all the other liberals talking on tv tonight about how great this speech was are completely out of it.

We are screwed.

Reform is dead because Obama gave a powerful defense of the private market tonight.

Posted by neaguy at 09/09/2009 @ 10:45pm
voters like you are why obama doesn't need to make real "change" Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 10:39pm

Did a rabid new con repub bite you?

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 10:45pm
Obama: "But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice. And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need."

--Two of my best friends and a cousin are uninsured. How much will it cost each of them (per month?/per year?) to get insured under Obama's plan?

--And how good will the coverage be? What won't be covered?

Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 10:48pm
Byron York: "Obama: I used to say 47 million uninsured. Now, it's 30 million." At this rate, if we can wait until November, the problem may resolve itself.

John Hinderaker: The Obama plan--whatever it is, once reduced to writing--depends for most of its financing on the bare assertion that we are currently wasting hundreds of billions of (MediCare) dollars, and that we will stop wasting that money only if taxpayers knuckle under to Obamacare....This was not, to put it kindly, a speech that was directed at thinking people.

Posted by Happy at 09/09/2009 @ 10:49pm
voters like you are why obama doesn't need to make real "change" Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 10:39pm Did a rabid new con repub bite you?

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 10:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--look at the board...you're in the minority (w/ Texas Flood)...everyone else who wants single payer (or more, I want universal) are severely disappointed with Obama...

yet you think he's delivering something special...so sad.

Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 10:50pm
BHO: I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But 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.

HAPPY (aka PowerLine): Is it churlish to point out that profits are not overhead? It might be if this were just a slip of the tongue on the stump. But this was a speech that was carefully crafted by Obama and his top advisers. They really do not know the first thing about business or economics. So why should we put them in charge of our economy?

Posted by Happy at 09/09/2009 @ 10:51pm
This was not, to put it kindly, a speech that was directed at thinking people.

Posted by Happy at 09/09/2009 @ 10:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--that's exactly why TexasFlood and amabOfools loved it---they love, love, love ANYTHING Obama does....EN--EEEEEEE--THING!

Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 10:53pm
BHO: I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But 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.

HAPPY (aka PowerLine): Is it churlish to point out that profits are not overhead? It might be if this were just a slip of the tongue on the stump. But this was a speech that was carefully crafted by Obama and his top advisers. They really do not know the first thing about business or economics. So why should we put them in charge of our economy? Posted by Happy at 09/09/2009 @ 10:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--you're absolutely correct...and as someone who's for universal health care (I know you're not) I will say that it infuriates me that Obama continues to placate, placate, placate...calling profits and huge executive salaries "overhead" is a pathetic euphamism (and, like you said, doesn't fit into the category of what overhead is).

too bad obama can't use his excellent (gov't) insurance to go buy some balls...

Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 10:58pm
Since everyone is dealing in what if's-- since no one has actually read Obama's bill much less has it passed any chamber. Yet.

What if the insurance companies actually, being all like regulated by 'we the people's' gov, drop their premium costs, but not their policy coverage; insure anyone that applies. People that can't afford them then get the same via a net public option healthcare. Thus hospital costs drop or at least slow to a crawl. Pharm already agreed to bring down their costs as well. Everyone is covered.

And the problem is...

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 11:00pm
Since everyone is dealing in what if's-- since no one has actually read Obama's bill much less has it passed any chamber. Yet.

What if the insurance companies actually, being all like regulated by 'we the people's' gov, drop their premium costs, but not their policy coverage; insure anyone that applies. People that can't afford them then get the same via a net public option healthcare. Thus hospital costs drop or at least slow to a crawl. Pharm already agreed to bring down their costs as well. Everyone is covered. And the problem is...

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 11:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--what if you woke up tomorrow in love with George Bush?

--answer my question: if someone is uninsured, under Obama's plan, what will it cost him to get an insurance plan? and what won't be covered in these plans?

thanks...

Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 11:06pm
Good call, John.

Posted by neaguy at 09/09/2009 @ 10:45pm

10:1 this thread has a different title in the morning.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 11:11pm
"Obama Uses Presidential Stick To Nudge Things Forward"

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 11:13pm
calling profits and huge executive salaries "overhead" is a pathetic euphamism (and, like you said, doesn't fit into the category of what overhead is).

Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 10:58pm

Er, then why does the definition of 'Overhead' state "SALARIES"?

OVERHEAD

Definition: The indirect costs or fixed expenses of operating a business (that is, the costs not directly related to the manufacture of a product or delivery of a service) that range from rent to administrative costs to marketing costs

Overhead refers to all non-labor expenses required to operate your business. These expenses are either fixed or variable:

Fixed expenses. No matter what your sales volume is, fixed costs must be met every month. Fixed expenses include rent or mortgage payments, depreciation on fixed assets (such as cars and office equipment),

"salaries and associated payroll costs"

, liability and other insurance, utilities, membership dues and subscriptions (which can sometimes be affected by sales volume), and legal and accounting costs. These expenses don't change, regardless of whether a company's revenue goes up or down.

Variable expenses. Most so-called variable expenses are really semi variable expenses that fluctuate from month to month in relation to sales and other factors, such as promotional efforts, change of season, and variations in the prices of supplies and services. Fitting into this category are expenses for telephone, office supplies (the more business, the greater the use of these items), printing, packaging, mailing, advertising, and promotion. When estimating variable expenses, use an average figure based on an estimate of the yearly total."

http://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/term/82612.html

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 11:16pm
So why should we put them in charge of our economy?

Posted by Happy at 09/09/2009 @ 10:51pm

<i>you</i> put <i>them</i> in charge?

�rale....

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 11:17pm
from the definition you cut-and-pasted hsubfools: "Overhead refers to all non-labor expenses required to operate your business."

--salaries go to people...people's work is considered "labor"

--and profits are obviously not overhead...but I'm sure you'll argue they are...

--but to the main question (I'll repeat it here, again): if someone is uninsured, under Obama's plan, what will it cost him to get an insurance plan? and what won't be covered in these plans? thanks...

Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 11:21pm
actually, urmi, mr obama is

"Not covered:

. Orthopedic, diabetic and corrective shoes

. arch supports

. heel pads and heel cups

. lumbosacral supports

. corsets, trusses, elastic stockings, Jobst stockings, support hose, and other supportive devices

. prosthetic replacements

. testicular implants

2003 Group Health Plan Section 5( a) 20 23. "

��

https://www2.opm.gov/insure/03/brochures/html/73-104.html

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 11:26pm
hsubfools----

1--you think salary is "overhead"...HAHAHAHA!

2--you won't answer a simple question about how much an insurance plan would cost someone who's uninsured under Obama's plan...if you can't answer, I'll ask, as you've ended numerous of your posts on this thread..."And the problem is..."?

Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 11:27pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 11:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--the implants aren't gonna get the job done I'm afraid...

Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 11:29pm
(to husb) --and profits are obviously not overhead...but I'm sure you'll argue they are...

Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 11:21pm

In some Left-wing Economics....."profits" along with ALL "managerial salaries/bonuses" = overhead....as in, it's over (their) head in turns of understanding these `input' value in the revenue production process.

Let the rewrite of tonight's BIG NOTHING fill the sea to shining sea....tomorrow!

Posted by Happy at 09/09/2009 @ 11:31pm
--answer my question: if someone is uninsured, under Obama's plan, what will it cost him to get an insurance plan? and what won't be covered in these plans? thanks... Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 11:06pm

How much does it cost a welfare recipient to get welfare? There's a sliding scale depending on need. And since insurance companies are not going to be able to deny coverage for getting sick or limit total pay outs, deny preexisting condition, the net public option would have equivalent coverage if it's meant to keep the insurance industry in line and competitive.

I like you will have to see the final bill.

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 11:33pm
where's my purple pill?

Posted by winyahn at 09/09/2009 @ 11:33pm
And the problem is...

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 11:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person

"We the people "by STATE already regulate health insurance companies!

Insurance commisioners of 50 states already fully regulate ALL insurance for their state including health insurance. There are great disparities in costs from state to state and by income levels also. Same goes for auto, homeowners, commercial business etc.

There is a federal program for flood insurance which the government only writes, there are windstorm pools contributed to by ALL insurance companies writing homeowners and business insurance in coastal state by 3 tier areas distances from the ocean.

Congress has "threatened" to take over other areas of insurance such as "manufactored products liability" in the past due to insurance market restrictions by all companies writing business insurance which have otherwise been resolved by the companies! Tha did NOT happen with FLOOD insurance which is why only the Fed Gov. writes it except for auto policies and inland marine policies that do not exclude flood.

If anything health insurance companies and all forms of health providers have been put on notice to improve their industry or face another Federal takeover.

However, this goes beyound that simple political exercise. What we have here is a Demoncrat Pres. and Congress that is out to simply GRAB more Power for their party at the expense of taxpayers and job providers all while using taxpayer dollars to pay the healthcare debt of their UNION supporters all while creating a vehicle to assure that more unions will arise in the healthcare industry and that is making everyone really mad!

Posted by BigPasture at 09/09/2009 @ 11:33pm
damn....

"Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan supported President Bush by offering projections of 'an on-budget surplus of almost $500 billion ... in fiscal year 2010'. "

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 11:37pm
double damnation!

"Mr Bush also said in February 2001: 'After paying the bills, my plan reduces the national debt, and fast. So fast, in fact, that economists worry that we're going to run out of debt to retire. That would be a good worry to have.'"

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 11:38pm
How can they enforce the "cover yourself or face fines" provision?

I imagine that the only way to get caught is to get sick and require treatment that you cannot pay for.

Ergo, we will be putting sick people in jail where they will receive treatment from the infirmary. Government healthcare at last.

Posted by koroviev at 09/09/2009 @ 11:39pm
hsuBfools: "How much does it cost a welfare recipient to get welfare?"

--so there's no "overhead"?

hsuBfools: "There's a sliding scale depending on need. And since insurance companies are not going to be able to deny coverage for getting sick or limit total pay outs, deny preexisting condition, the net public option would have equivalent coverage if it's meant to keep the insurance industry in line and competitive."

--oh, wait...so no "overhead"?

hsuBfools: "I like you will have to see the final bill."

--counting chickens before they roost is ALWAYS the right move!

...p.s. by "overhead" I used twice above I'm clearly mocking you're lack of understanding of basic definitions...thus your explanation of what something will "cost" is clearly not truly be requested (that means it's "ironic"--which I'd say "look it up"--but clearly you can't even do that right!)

Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 11:41pm
How can they enforce the "cover yourself or face fines" provision? I imagine that the only way to get caught is to get sick and require treatment that you cannot pay for. Ergo, we will be putting sick people in jail where they will receive treatment from the infirmary. Government healthcare at last.

Posted by koroviev at 09/09/2009 @ 11:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--oh, no no no koroview: as the ever-erudite husbfools tells it: it's all free! it's like collecting welfare! and the best part? you can't be denied any type of treatment...AT ALL!

PREST-DOH!

Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 11:44pm
all-too-clear his determination to retain the private for-profit system that has failed so miserably to deliver universal caree but that has succeeded so monumentally in delivering profits to insurance and pharmaceutical corporation stockholders. Nichols

Have we lost our sense of proportions? Do we know what is 'real politics'? We have a situation where even blue dogs are more than doubtful to sign on the public option and we want to create the mono-public option tomorrow out of nothing?

I contend that Obama looked OK. He wants to get the reform approved with the "5% public option participation". Whomever here believes that the public option is the answer (me included of course) will know that this option when created will progressively gain terrain every day. And not because of unfair competition (as Reps say) but because of its superior performance and lower (or none) profits. We won't ever need to pass it as a monopoly with a law, it will grow and grow in popularity such that the private insurance remaining will take the public indexes of performance as goals for them.

Yes, Obama sounded conciliatory some times. But again, we don't need other Clinton, we want it approved "as it is", only requisites are: with a public option and no pre-existing conditions.

Posted by Frank42 at 09/09/2009 @ 11:47pm
The Trojan horse of this whole deal is the tort reform.

The insurance companies won't have to be concerned with lawsuits so the quality of care will sink to match their profits.

The less insurers have to pay for care the more they make. why should they care if hospitals turn into ratholes, they can't be sued for anything.

Welcome to the new third world right outside your door.

Posted by koroviev at 09/09/2009 @ 11:48pm
frank42: "We won't ever need to pass it as a monopoly with a law, it will grow and grow in popularity such that the private insurance remaining will take the public indexes of performance as goals for them."

--what's the timetable on this?

Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 11:49pm
The Trojan horse of this whole deal is the tort reform. The insurance companies won't have to be concerned with lawsuits so the quality of care will sink to match their profits. The less insurers have to pay for care the more they make. why should they care if hospitals turn into ratholes, they can't be sued for anything. Welcome to the new third world right outside your door.

Posted by koroviev at 09/09/2009 @ 11:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--since Obama seems to think regulating the health insurance companies is the answer...then why not regulate how much the companies that offer malpractice insurance to doctors can charge?...seems like a simpler solution...and it uses the same logic

Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 11:54pm
Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 11:21pm

All I stated was that the definition of OVERHEAD includes SALARIES.

Not a far leap to see exec excesses as garnished profits...

But yes I understand how new con repubs worship profits as the holiest of holies. Long ago mistaking them for holy prophets...

Lastly it does appear more and more obvious as though a GOP op has you saddled and broken in so to speak...

But hey it's the USA!

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 11:56pm
Joe Wilson should be censured by Congress. The GOP has ceased to be a serious political party, and is instead now a dumb, angry, frightened mob that smells blood. Wilson's behavior is beneath contempt and it is time for the Congressional majority to assert that it is to be respected. The GOP must be made to stop lying to the public in order to stir up the only seriously motivated wing its party, the notorious Nut Wing. The only way to do that is to censure Joe Wilson.

Posted by syfriendly at 09/09/2009 @ 11:59pm
hsuBfools: "All I stated was that the definition of OVERHEAD includes SALARIES."

--which is not correct. do you deny this? do you insist you're right when you're wrong?

hsuBfools: "But yes I understand how new con repubs worship profits as the holiest of holies. Long ago mistaking them for holy prophets..."

--I want universal health care...you're evidently content with far, far less. sad.

hsuBfools: "Lastly it does appear more and more obvious as though a GOP op has you saddled and broken in so to speak...But hey it's the USA!"

--them GOPers love universal health care...anyone who disagrees with you is a right-winger, huh? sad conspiracy theorist/obama suck up.

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 12:00am
PUBLIC EFFIN OPTION, MR. PRESIDENT!

PUBLIC EFFIN OPTION, SIR!

PUBLIC EFFIN OPTION!

ANYTING ELSE IS JUST EFFIN THE PUBLIC...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/10/2009 @ 12:02am
Joe Wilson should be censured by Congress. The GOP has ceased to be a serious political party, and is instead now a dumb, angry, frightened mob that smells blood. Wilson's behavior is beneath contempt and it is time for the Congressional majority to assert that it is to be respected. The GOP must be made to stop lying to the public in order to stir up the only seriously motivated wing its party, the notorious Nut Wing. The only way to do that is to censure Joe Wilson.

Posted by syfriendly at 09/09/2009 @ 11:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--hsuBfools acts the same way here...rudeness is not party-specific

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 12:07am
hsuBfools: "All I stated was that the definition of OVERHEAD includes SALARIES." --which is not correct. do you deny this? do you insist you're right when you're wrong? Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 12:00am

Are you Colonel Klink?

I even provided the link before so maybe stuff must be dripping in your eyes. Wipe.

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 12:13am
hsuBfools: "All I stated was that the definition of OVERHEAD includes SALARIES." --which is not correct. do you deny this? do you insist you're right when you're wrong?

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 12:00am

Are you Colonel Klink? I even provided the link before so maybe stuff must be dripping in your eyes. Wipe.

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 12:13am | ignore this person | warn this person

--did you bother to read what you linked to? I'll do this again for you...

from the definition you cut-and-pasted hsubfools:

"Overhead refers to all non-labor expenses required to operate your business."

--salaries go to people...

--people's work is labor...

--people do not fall under "non-labor expenses"

remember, again...this is from your own definition that you cut-and-pasted. read it again...sloooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwllllllllyyy if you have to.

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 12:20am
-them GOPers love universal health care... Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 12:00am

Hey as they say-- with friends like you... dems will easily get everything together!

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 12:22am
"Joe Wilson should be censured by Congress"

I THINK JOE IS AMERICAN PATRIOT THAT JUST SAID WHAT MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WERE SCREAMING AT THIER TV....BARRY SOTERO IS A FUCKING LIAR ABOUT SOOOOOO MANY THINGS I CANT EVEN COUNT ANY MORE...BUT TOMMORROW MORNING I WILL DONATE $1000 TO HIS CAMPAIGN WITH PRIDE...

BY THE WAY LIBZ YOUR OUTRAGE AT JOES OUTBURST WILL BE TEMPERED TOMMORROW WHEN THE NEWS SHOWS THE MANY TIMES YOU DETESTABLE LIBZ DISREPECTED BUSH BY BOOING AND OTHER ANTICS IN THE SOTU SPEECHES ESPECIALLY IN A TIME OF WAR!!!!!

ANYWAY BARRYS LITTLE STUNT SPEECH WILL SOON BE A MEMORY WHEN HE LOOKS OUT HIS WINDOW THIS SATURDAY TO SEE THE HORDES OF TRUE PATRIOTIC AMERICANS IN THE STREETS OF DC CALLING THAT ASSHOLE A LIAR TO HIS FACE...

WHAT WILL YOU LITTLE PUSSY LIBZ CRY ABOUT THEN???HMMMM?????

THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE TRAITOROUS DEMONCRAT PARTY HAS ALREADY BEGUN...I FOR ONE CANT BE HAPPIER!!!

Posted by libzRfreaks2 at 09/10/2009 @ 12:27am
-them GOPers love universal health care... Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 12:00am

Hey as they say-- with friends like you... dems will easily get everything together!

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 12:22am | ignore this person | warn this person

--you and TexasFlood...count 'em...2 posters thus far...have been pleased with Obama's plan. the company you're keeping is not something to be proud of...

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 12:30am
4 years to implement huh.....that would be 2013. Hmmmmm......I smell David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel on this time frame.

Posted by OneVote at 09/10/2009 @ 12:35am
smelling is not a valid option.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/10/2009 @ 12:42am
This is what I posted and it clearly states "salaries and associated payroll costs" as 'Fixed expenses' and thus I ask a question; then you go ape shit. Did you read all of the post?:

Er, then why does the definition of 'Overhead' state "SALARIES"?

OVERHEAD

Definition: The indirect costs or fixed expenses of operating a business (that is, the costs not directly related to the manufacture of a product or delivery of a service) that range from rent to administrative costs to marketing costs

Overhead refers to all non-labor expenses required to operate your business. These expenses are either fixed or variable:

Fixed expenses. No matter what your sales volume is, fixed costs must be met every month. Fixed expenses include rent or mortgage payments, depreciation on fixed assets (such as cars and office equipment),

"salaries and associated payroll costs"

, liability and other insurance, utilities, membership dues and subscriptions (which can sometimes be affected by sales volume), and legal and accounting costs. These expenses don't change, regardless of whether a company's revenue goes up or down.

Variable expenses. Most so-called variable expenses are really semi variable expenses that fluctuate from month to month in relation to sales and other factors, such as promotional efforts, change of season, and variations in the prices of supplies and services. Fitting into this category are expenses for telephone, office supplies (the more business, the greater the use of these items), printing, packaging, mailing, advertising, and promotion. When estimating variable expenses, use an average figure based on an estimate of the yearly total."

http://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/term/82612.html

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 11:16pm

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 12:54am
-you and TexasFlood...count 'em...2 posters thus far...have been pleased with Obama's plan. the company you're keeping is not something to be proud of... Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 12:30am

So you're the conforming fall in line goose stepping lemming and see it as a good thing?

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 01:01am
hsubfools: "This is what I posted and it clearly states "salaries and associated payroll costs" as 'Fixed expenses' and thus I ask a question; then you go ape shit. Did you read all of the post?: Er, then why does the definition of 'Overhead' state "SALARIES"?"

--you definition of "ape shit" must be as reliable as entrepreneur.com's examples of "overhead"

the website's definition is accurate. overhead is: "the costs not directly related to the delivery of a service" ... labor is considered a "direct cost"

the website inaccurately includes "salary" since labor is a direct cost--people work for "money"...ever heard of it...it's the stuff that obama's NOT taking into consideration in his "plan" and why it's doomed to fail...

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 01:07am
-you and TexasFlood...count 'em...2 posters thus far...have been pleased with Obama's plan. the company you're keeping is not something to be proud of... Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 12:30am

So you're the conforming fall in line goose stepping lemming and see it as a good thing?

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 01:01am | ignore this person | warn this person

--exact opposite, actually...you and TexasFlood are taking care of falling in line with Obama's terribly mediocre "plan"

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 01:08am
exact opposite, actually...you and TexasFlood are taking care of falling in line with Obama's terribly mediocre "plan" Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 01:08am

Er, the plan you've judged and have not even read?

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 01:12am
'Conforming' I believe still means going with the crowd or is UG creating his own definitions now?

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 01:15am
Healthcare problems in the near future for America...

My health insurer requires me to only see barber surgeons within it's own network for blood letting or application of crosswort.

And, if I need a druid to decipher the entrails of a bull for diagnosis, that will require a referral form filled out in triplicate.

Posted by koroviev at 09/10/2009 @ 01:22am
exact opposite, actually...you and TexasFlood are taking care of falling in line with Obama's terribly mediocre "plan"

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 01:08am

Er, the plan you've judged and have not even read?

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 01:12am | ignore this person | warn this person

--where can I read Obama's "plan"? I heard him talk about it tonight.

--again, since you've got the plan perfectly understood: asks you how much it will cost him a month to buy health insurance from the gov't under obama's plan--

your answer is?

he also asks "what won't be covered"?

your answer is?

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 01:27am
'Conforming' I believe still means going with the crowd or is UG creating his own definitions now? Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 01:15am | ignore this person | warn this person

where did I define "conforming" differently?

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 01:29am
We would've seen racy jokes fly if John printed the alternative "Obama Spoke Softly But...

Still, so what if Obama kept the public option buttoned up, so to speak, not to scare anyone. We all know it's there. Does anyone really need to see Obama act out irresponsibly?

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 01:38am
Still, so what if Obama kept the public option buttoned up, so to speak, not to scare anyone. We all know it's there. Does anyone really need to see Obama act out irresponsibly?

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 01:38am | ignore this person | warn this person

--so now he's paternally keeping things from us in a speech that he's actually going to get congress to put in?

do you ever listen to yourself?

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 01:41am
Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 01:41am

You're obviously very pun inept.

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 01:47am
Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 01:27am

Answered previously already a while back.

Well at least you believe in recycling or is it early onset...

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 01:55am
I see I'm a little late to the party. First, I'll address some posts that need addressin'

"Mr Bush also said in February 2001: 'After paying the bills, my plan reduces the national debt, and fast. So fast, in fact, that economists worry that we're going to run out of debt to retire. That would be a good worry to have.'"

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2009 @ 11:38pm

There was a small little incident 7 months later that irrevocably changed the world. Many budgets in Feb '01 didn't pan out.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/10/2009 @ 06:54am
hsubfools----

1--you think salary is "overhead"...HAHAHAHA!

Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 11:27pm

Well, there are different understandings of overhead. Mine, very loosely, relates to costs that don't produce more product. Very generally, overhead isn't scaleable.

So, if you manufacture cars, buying steel isn't overhead. But the salaries of the accountants who prepare your financial statements are overhead.

A production line worker can only put so many tire on in a week. If you want to double the number of cars, you need to double the number of tire-putter-oners (non-overhead). You don't have to double your accounting staff (overhead).

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/10/2009 @ 06:59am
How can they enforce the "cover yourself or face fines" provision?

Posted by koroviev at 09/09/2009 @ 11:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person

The IRS will do it.

Just like the IRS gets a 1098 for reported mortgage interest, they will get a report from your health insurer.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/10/2009 @ 07:02am
hsuBfools: "All I stated was that the definition of OVERHEAD includes SALARIES."

--which is not correct. do you deny this? do you insist you're right when you're wrong?

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 12:00am

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I think hsuB is more right than you. Overhead includes SOME salaries: The salaries of the accountants, CEO, CFO, treasurer, etc.

It certainly does not include ALL salaries, which may be your point, but as it is most commonly understood, "overhead" includes the salaries of some employees.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/10/2009 @ 07:07am
Okay, my reaction? I loved it! I thought it was a fantastic prescription for dealing with our specific problems. Things I liked most:

1) Full throated support for market solutions

2) Federal mandate for coverage to deal with the irresponsible free riders (President Obama even used the word, "irresponsible".)

3) Insurance exchange, as I understand it, allows sales across state boarders that guts special interests' ability to profit from rent seeking (Laws that say every policy must include invitro fertilization, 52 sessions of mental health, chriropractic visits, etc.)

4) "Public option" in name only. A "public option" without massive government subsidies is not what has been discussed here as the public option. I can certainly never be single payer by stealth.

5) Tort reform

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/10/2009 @ 07:26am
Continued...

6) No coverage for people in the country illegally (will still be treated at emergency rooms so no change from today)

7) used the correct number (30 million) of AMERICANs w/o coverage (didn't include illegal aliens)

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/10/2009 @ 07:29am
The consumer protections are also reasonable. The free market will not support subsidies (which is what eliminating pre-existing conditions creates); however, the free market does not include a federal mandate to purchase.

A compulsory market will support subsidies of the sick. This is a smart move.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/10/2009 @ 07:32am
The most politically astute move was to make it effective in 4 years.

Bush's rationale for re-election is you don't change horses mid-stream and you don't change commander-in-chief in the middle of a war.

With his healthcare reforms being only a few months from completion, President Obama will be able to offer the same rationale to voters about allowing him to see his plan through.

I was really impressed. I liked his proposal so much, I would consider voting for him in '12.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/10/2009 @ 07:36am
I was really impressed. I liked his proposal so much, I would consider voting for him in '12.----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/10/2009 @ 07:36am

Anybody think Darin won't backpedal from this before 2012...or play up the "consider" caveat in short order???

Posted by Mask at 09/10/2009 @ 07:43am
"Small stick" is a good joke. It is better than small balls. Obama is a good speech maker and that is the end of that stick. He sold us out to the BigPharma without even consulting congress. So called waste in Medicare is interesting, enough to cover the uninsured given the mandates for individuals if you can believe it. The "waste" is mis-direction to rob us blind. Seniors watch out! The promise that it should be totally self sufficient cannot be kept. When it comes to wars, we don't need to balance the budget or make it revenue neutral or can't even ask can we afford it. But when it comes to helping the poor and the sick, the question of frugality comes up straightaway. With this speech my last vestiges of hope in this guy have evaporated. He has no spine, is an impostor. As some one said in these posts, "Check, mate", game over.

These days I am nauseated to listen to him. So predictable.

Posted by rnagisetty at 09/10/2009 @ 07:47am
Just saying the truth that non-citizens weren't guaranteed healthcare-- drove an all grown up Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina, pointing angrily at the president, blurted at the top of his voice: "You lie!"

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 10:26pm

Clearly, the health-care reform will not cover services for illegal aliens, for the following reasons:

All legal residents of the United States will carry identity cards that they will present when they see a heath-care provider so that that provider will know they can legally bill the appropriate insurance plan. Health-care providers will submit the information from the identity card when they request reimbursement. In suspicious cases the government will investigate to determine if the identity card is forged, in which case the card-holder will be required to pay restitution for services obtained under false pretenses. If the person fails to reimburse the health-care provider, the health-care provider will notify the government, which will investigate to determine the person's country of origin and will bill that country for the treatment. If the health-care provider is determined to have colluded in the fraud, the health-care provider will be sanctioned.

In all cases where a person receives emergency medical care the hospital will determine the residency status of the ill or injured person. If that person is in the country illegally, the hospital will bill that person for all services provided. If the person fails to reimburse the hospital, the hospital will notify the government, which will investigate to determine the person's country of origin and will bill that country for the treatment.

Posted by Mistral at 09/10/2009 @ 08:33am
Well if DarintBFT is correct about the 4 year time table being a politically astute move, I'd say also prior to then for credibility, the Iraq troop levels have to be down to around 35K by 2010! Obama's consistency would carry weight for the 4 year public option safety net to have mo. Not so much if we have 50k or more in Iraq. Progress in Afghanistan/Pakistan needs to be defined however slow at that point as well. Upswing in jobs too. It's the package that's the stick; not the schtick...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/26/obama.troops/

Ouch:

http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 08:43am
er:, the Iraq troop levels have to be down to around 35K by 'mid' 2010!

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 08:58am
There was a small little incident 7 months later that irrevocably changed the world. Many budgets in Feb '01 didn't pan out.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/10/2009 @ 06:54am

but how much of that "change" was necessary?

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/10/2009 @ 09:31am
Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 01:27am

Answered previously already a while back.

Well at least you believe in recycling or is it early onset...

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 01:55am | ignore this person | warn this person

--yeah, I guess uninsured people shouldn't ask, "what's it gonna cost me to be insured under obama's plan?"...bad citizens...dont' ask questions!

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 09:37am
Well, there are different understandings of overhead. Mine, very loosely, relates to costs that don't produce more product. Very generally, overhead isn't scaleable.

So, if you manufacture cars, buying steel isn't overhead. But the salaries of the accountants who prepare your financial statements are overhead.

A production line worker can only put so many tire on in a week. If you want to double the number of cars, you need to double the number of tire-putter-oners (non-overhead). You don't have to double your accounting staff (overhead).

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/10/2009 @ 06:59am | ignore this person | warn this person

--accountants would not be "overhead" in an insurance company...

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 09:38am
AFTER LISTENING TO A FEW HISPANIC TALK RADIO STATIONS THIS MORNING(I ALSO SPEAK SPANISH) THEY WERE INSISTING THAT WHAT THE LIAR BARRY SOTERO SAID WAS JUST FOR THE AUDIENCE CONSUMPTION, THAT HE WILL IN FACT COVER THE ILLEGALS AND FOR THEM NOT TO WORRY OR GET UPSET!!!

IS THE SHIT GONNA HIT THE FAN WHEN THE LIAR IN CHIEF IS REALLY EXPOSED FOR WHAT HE IS...A FUCKING FRAUD!!!!

Posted by libzRfreaks2 at 09/10/2009 @ 09:39am
I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I think hsuB is more right than you. Overhead includes SOME salaries: The salaries of the accountants, CEO, CFO, treasurer, etc.

It certainly does not include ALL salaries, which may be your point, but as it is most commonly understood, "overhead" includes the salaries of some employees.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/10/2009 @ 07:07am | ignore this person | warn this person

--are accountants overhead in an insurance company?

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 09:40am
--yeah, I guess uninsured people shouldn't ask, "what's it gonna cost me to be insured under obama's plan?"...bad citizens...dont' ask questions! Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 09:37am

Yep, early onset, for sure.

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 10:03am
"I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last."

Yes, because after Obama's lame, half-hearted, smokescreen "attempt" at reform, no other president will try again.

After all, the most important thing for the future of the country is that the insurance companies thrive and prosper. Just ask Max Baucus. Or any other fascist member of Congress.

Posted by Citizen54 at 09/10/2009 @ 10:12am
There was a small little incident 7 months later that irrevocably changed the world. Many budgets in Feb '01 didn't pan out.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/10/2009 @ 06:54am

but how much of that "change" was necessary?

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/10/2009 @ 09:31am

Well for an answer, if there is really is indeed a question, lets get back to the FDR reference comparison here as to what brought on a major recession/depression and what brought us out. But instead of to Obama, to hsuB!

FDR came into a great depression, enacted lots of stimulus projects (maybe not enough) and installed corrective and regulatory measures to prevent a similar financial crisis in the future, then had to fight and win a world war in less time to boot! Resulting in consistent growth.

hsuB came into office...

Well, everyone already knows the rest of the story. A universe in reverse...

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 10:15am
--are accountants overhead in an insurance company?

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 09:40am

An excellent question.....I didn't want to butt in w/Darin's broader definitions of "overhead"....

In your question, I would contend any accountants in a financial services company, and insurance is such, is NOT overhead. They are part and parcel of the entire enterprise!

Posted by Happy at 09/10/2009 @ 10:24am
--are accountants overhead in an insurance company?

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 09:40am

In your question, I would contend any accountants in a financial services company, and insurance is such, is NOT overhead. They are part and parcel of the entire enterprise!

Posted by Happy at 09/10/2009 @ 10:24am

Accountants would not be overhead. They would be Direct Expenses. Executives and other Indirect Salaried Employees would be part of Overhead. I've had to put together too many budgets over the years.

<Costs in a business are traditionally divided into operating and administrative categories. Both are necessary for the company, but operating costs are closely tied to specific products and services whereas administrative costs are incurred on behalf of the enterprise as a whole. This latter expense is sometimes referred to as "overhead."

At the headquarters of the company administrative expenses are incurred. These include executives and staff salaries and fringes. Accruing in addition will be the costs of the buildings' rents and maintenance, outside services, expenditures on advertising and sales promotion, personnel, health programs, executive travel costs, etc.>

http://definitions.uslegal.com/o/overhead-expense/

Posted by antisocialist at 09/10/2009 @ 10:26am
--yeah, I guess uninsured people shouldn't ask, "what's it gonna cost me to be insured under obama's plan?"...bad citizens...dont' ask questions! Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 09:37am

Yep, early onset, for sure.

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 10:03am | ignore this person | warn this person

--i'll take that to mean you say it's "free" since you won't give an amount...

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 10:43am
--are accountants overhead in an insurance company?

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 09:40am

An excellent question.....I didn't want to butt in w/Darin's broader definitions of "overhead"....

In your question, I would contend any accountants in a financial services company, and insurance is such, is NOT overhead. They are part and parcel of the entire enterprise!

Posted by Happy at 09/10/2009 @ 10:24am | ignore this person | warn this person

--that's what i was thinking too...

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 10:45am
Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 10:43am

You've got to be the looniest new con repub apologist in a lefty jumpsuit I've seem in a long time. I clearly stated:

"There's a sliding scale depending on need."

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 11:33pm

Is your head going to blow up because it's not black or white? Or are values of gray just plain imperceivable in your universe?

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 11:01am
Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 10:45am

Birds of a feather...

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 11:02am
Happy, Gyro, you are correct that most accountants are not overhead at a financial services company. My example of steel for cars implied a manufacturing sector. I thought about the cavet that accounts aren't overhead for accounting firms, but I thought the description of a fianacial service to be produced was too technical for the broader discussion here.

Some salaries are overhead, but not all salaries are overhead. It depends on the product produced.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/10/2009 @ 11:04am
Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 10:43am

You've got to be the looniest new con repub apologist in a lefty jumpsuit I've seem in a long time. I clearly stated:

"There's a sliding scale depending on need."

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/09/2009 @ 11:33pm

Is your head going to blow up because it's not black or white? Or are values of gray just plain imperceivable in your universe?

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 11:01am | ignore this person | warn this person

--uninsured person: "I need to write a check so I can pay for this months health insurance. it's obama's plan."

--teller: "very well sir, how much would you like to withdraw?"

--uninsured person: "um...a sliding scale depending on need"

--teller: stares blankly. "what?"

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 11:09am
A couple of more stray thoughts on the speech.

Are we all in agreement that the "public option" mentioned by President Obama is not the public option discussed here over the last several weeks?

I think Nichols' line about it being "a sort of welfare program that would attract only about five percent of Americans and that would be funded by premiums rather than tax dollars" makes it pretty clear that this is nothing like the public option envisioned here recently.

Basically, what he described is Blue Cross/Blue Shield, but with poorly paid executives. (I think some of the states BC/BS might have reorganized as for profit, but not all of them.) You know what they call a poorly paid executive, don't you?

Incompetent.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/10/2009 @ 11:12am
The risk is that the plan is too complex for McMerikens to follow, and therein hugely ripe for neocon-MSM fearmongering.

This is the least of all possible evils, too single payer would die on the spot. Too nothing-different would be too nothing-different.

So we have the pretty smart approach - "nothing different" except good stuff. Keep your insurance/doctor, and enjoy the consumer protections.

And we have the "marketplace" solution for the uninsured.

And we have the modest progressive, pays for itself, public option - to keep them honest, with a dash of McCain to help it go down.

---- The most common bloviation here forever and ever is 95% destructive comments, 5% constructive alternatives.

Can any neocon poster here spell out their preferred approach? Doing nothing is something one can respectfully agree to disagree upon.

Posted by winyahn at 09/10/2009 @ 11:26am
--teller: stares blankly. "what?"

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 11:09am

could it not be something along these lines:

--teller: I'm pulling up on my computer your last year's 1040 adjusted gross income... Another metric or two. OK here's the plans available to you to choose from... (click print).

Posted by winyahn at 09/10/2009 @ 11:30am
--teller: stares blankly. "what?"

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 11:09am

could it not be something along these lines:

--teller: I'm pulling up on my computer your last year's 1040 adjusted gross income... Another metric or two. OK here's the plans available to you to choose from... (click print).

Posted by winyahn at 09/10/2009 @ 11:30am | ignore this person | warn this person

--so now banks are gonna be able to tell me how much it costs? wow, talk about service! how soon can I find out, since no one here wants to tell me?

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 11:35am
Question for all of the leftists:

If all health insurance companies are currently regulated by each state's Insurance Commissioner, why haven't the states that are controlled legislatively by Democrats imposed corrections or mandates such as those the Congressional legislation and Obama are proposing?

Wouldn't this have been an effective control and a opportunity to see the difference in those states and states that maintain the status quo?

Posted by antisocialist at 09/10/2009 @ 11:40am
Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 11:09am

So you really can't see the term: "SLIDING SCALE" even if I type it large?

WOW, you got it bad then!

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 11:41am
Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 11:09am

So you really can't see the term: "SLIDING SCALE" even if I type it large?

WOW, you got it bad then!

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 11:41am | ignore this person | warn this person

--slides from what $ amount to what $ amount?

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 11:50am
Poor John, He just won't give up that single payer.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/10/2009 @ 12:10pm
-slides from what $ amount to what $ amount?

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 11:50am

Yea, we're making progress!

slid�ing scale (sldng) n. A scale in which indicated prices, taxes, or wages vary in accordance with another factor, as wages with the cost-of-living index or medical charges with a patient's income.

So one can surmise that if the income for a person is at or close to $0, for whatever reason, then the person most likely will utilize the necessary medical services at $0 cost. The more the person earns the more the costs.

Then of course the question Obama already answered is where is the money coming from to pay for that cost.

Do you remember what he said?

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 12:13pm
-slides from what $ amount to what $ amount? Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 11:50am Yea, we're making progress! slid�ing scale (sldng) n. A scale in which indicated prices, taxes, or wages vary in accordance with another factor, as wages with the cost-of-living index or medical charges with a patient's income. So one can surmise that if the income for a person is at or close to $0, for whatever reason, then the person most likely will utilize the necessary medical services at $0 cost. The more the person earns the more the costs. Then of course the question Obama already answered is where is the money coming from to pay for that cost. Do you remember what he said? Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 12:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--you've got the $0 down...that's good...now what's the max an uninsured person would have to pay to get on obama's plan?

we're gettin' close...you can do it!...help me out...

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 12:16pm
Can any neocon poster here spell out their preferred approach? Doing nothing is something one can respectfully agree to disagree upon.

Posted by winyahn at 09/10/2009 @ 11:26am

President Obama mentioned single payer as a dream of the left and more individual insurance as a dream of the Right.

Outlawing employer provided group insurance and mandating that people purchase individual policies (like Singapore) is the method that I think will put us in the best postition 50 years from now.

But it would be far too painful in the near term. As it is, I think the President's proposal is just right.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/10/2009 @ 1:00pm
Hey Urmy, make that three people on this thread who agree, HsuBfools, TexasFlood, and me, count um, three.

Posted by Denise29 at 09/10/2009 @ 1:08pm
now what's the max an uninsured person would have to pay to get on obama's plan? Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 12:16pm

Consider 1st that the 'max' means that the person purchasing it is not financially strapped, and most likely had a preexisting condition or was dropped because they got sick and their insurance agency cancelled their policy-- I would think that figure would be of one the lesser of many issues.

Plus we're going by the Obama address, which naturally didn't state within it of a lot of the understandably boring and complex details-- cue new con repub laugh track here. We all understand Obama was attempting to reestablishing his leadership of healthcare reform; not confuse any negotiating issues.

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 3:20pm
I am a liberal but I am pretty sick and tired of reading the stupidity here on this blog and in this article! President Obama gave a brilliant, heartfelt, common sense speech and still you fools are complaining it wasn't enough! We need affordable healthcare and the plan as laid out by our President is 100X better than what we have now because we have zero now! Stop bellyaching and get behind our President and support him! You're just as bad as the foolish conservative right! Nobody is going to get everything, it's all a compromise, grow up!

Posted by suzyku at 09/10/2009 @ 4:54pm
I am a liberal but I am pretty sick and tired of reading the stupidity here on this blog and in this article! President Obama gave a brilliant, heartfelt, common sense speech and still you fools are complaining it wasn't enough! We need affordable healthcare and the plan as laid out by our President is 100X better than what we have now because we have zero now! Stop bellyaching and get behind our President and support him! You're just as bad as the foolish conservative right! Nobody is going to get everything, it's all a compromise, grow up!

Posted by suzyku at 09/10/2009 @ 4:54pm

<the plan as laid out by our President is 100X better than what we have now because we have zero now!>

We don't have healthcare in this country?

Posted by antisocialist at 09/10/2009 @ 5:03pm
Obama invoked Reagan here:

"One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government."

Too bad Obama didn't say that to the corporate beggars from Wall Street and Detroit when they came to Washington for their bailouts.

Posted by Portia at 09/10/2009 @ 5:09pm
Hey Urmy, make that three people on this thread who agree, HsuBfools, TexasFlood, and me, count um, three. Posted by Denise29 at 09/10/2009 @ 1:08pm

We are not alone:

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Sept. 9, 2009.

"What was your overall reaction to President Obama's speech tonight: very positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative or very negative?"

Date__VeryPos__SomePos__SomeNeg__VeryNeg

9/9/09__56______21_______12_______9

"Do you think the policies being proposed by Barack Obama will move the country in the right direction or the wrong direction?"

Date________Right Direction__Wrong Direction

9/9/09___________70_________27

9/5-8/09 _________ 60_________35

"From everything you have heard or read so far, do you favor or oppose Barack Obama's plan to reform health care?"

Date____________Favor_____Oppose

9/9/09___________67________29

9/5-8/09 _________ 53________36

"Regardless of how you feel about Obama's plan, how likely do you think it is that Congress will pass most of his proposals: very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely or very unlikely?"

Date___VeryLike_SomeLike_SomeUnlike_VeryUnlike

9/9/09____20_____55_______17_______7

"And regardless of how you feel about Obama's plan, do you think he clearly stated his goals for a health care bill, or do you think he could have made it clearer in his speech what he wants in a health care bill?"

Date_____Clearly Stated_Could Have Made Clearer

9/9/09__________72__________26

Obviously these 26% are blogging here....(ha)

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 5:09pm
Obama invoked Reagan here:

"One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government."

Too bad Obama didn't say that to the corporate beggars from Wall Street and Detroit when they came to Washington for their bailouts.

Posted by Portia at 09/10/2009 @ 5:12pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 5:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--amabOfools abound!

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 5:29pm
Make that four, thanks for the comment suzyku, it made a lot of sense, also glad to see we are not alone hsuBfools.

Posted by Denise29 at 09/10/2009 @ 5:39pm
Make that four, thanks for the comment suzyku, it made a lot of sense, also glad to see we are not alone hsuBfools. Posted by Denise29 at 09/10/2009 @ 5:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person

--you're still far outnumbered by people who think Obama is selling out real progress (including most of the blog authors at The Nation)...but we're all "kooks" right?

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 5:53pm
Let me put out some more from HR 3200 that has gotten little attention.

There will be a surtax on the "wealthy" that does not go directly to healthcare, but into the general fund.

<SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.

27

(a) General Rule- In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to-

(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,

(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and

(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.>

http://tinyurl.com/lmcc3h

I wonder if Tiger Woods who really likes Obama will be happy with a Tax Surcharge of 5.85 million dollars? Actually Tiger's fortunate. He's a corporation so it won't apply specifically to him.

Or that pro athlete who cracks the million dollar contract level and finds he/she owes an additional $54,000 in taxes above and beyond his/her regular income tax

Posted by antisocialist at 09/10/2009 @ 6:22pm
Urmy,

There's a good reason Bushfools won't answer you. That's because the bill leaves this up to the future Health Czar.

<SEC. 222. PREMIUMS AND FINANCING.

(a) Establishment of Premiums-

2

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall establish geographically-adjusted premium rates for the public health insurance option in a manner--

(A) that complies with the premium rules established by the Commissioner under section 113 for Exchange-participating health benefit plans; and

(B) at a level sufficient to fully finance the costs of--

(i) health benefits provided by the public health insurance option; and

(ii) administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option.

(2) CONTINGENCY MARGIN- In establishing premium rates under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include an appropriate amount for a contingency margin.>

But don't worry, these are just small details to work out.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/10/2009 @ 6:41pm
Anti,

As well we do not know what parts will be left in the one put foreward.

What we do know is that there were no granny death camps created, no healthcare for non US citizens, etc.

No doubt all that will be added when Obama signs the bill... a la hsuB signing statements!!!!

BOOOO

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 7:23pm
Obviously these 26% are blogging here....(ha)

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 5:09pm

Drudge noted that CNN's sample included 45% Democrats and 18% Republicans.

I thought the speech was great.

CNN's poll is a worthless pile of shit.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/10/2009 @ 7:34pm
)...but we're all "kooks" right?

Posted by urmygyro at 09/10/2009 @ 5:53pm

Well, after 8 years of Obama-- we'll know just how kooky you really were. Right now, everything is just spectulation-- isn't it. But consider for a moment you're already sounding the part!

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 7:45pm
Drudge noted that CNN's sample included 45% Democrats and 18% Republicans.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/10/2009 @ 7:34pm |

So that means that the remaining 37% were independents that are normally the average of the extremes which makes the poll not far off the mark, no? That's a est error +/-5%. Even so, good times.

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 7:50pm
The ranks of repubs or those willing to call themselves repub, has been shrinking for a while now. Ok, 18% may be a stretch, but then again...

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/10/2009 @ 7:52pm
DTBFT, my hand is out to to shake, right on, thanks.

Posted by Denise29 at 09/10/2009 @ 8:49pm
P.S., STBFT, I know I won't always feel this way about what you write so, but for today, as my kids would say, Its all good, and kewl, way.

Posted by Denise29 at 09/10/2009 @ 8:54pm
Poor John, He just won't give up that single payer.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/10/2009 @ 12:10pm

i won't either.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/10/2009 @ 9:34pm
Mr. Obama's speech is not the point. All this wasted energy about a speech. Let's cut to the quick: the point is that Americans are still without healthcare, including those who are "covered". Wall Street and the insurance industry should be happy as a clam today. If this insult to the American public is voted into law, they can look forward to 30 or 40 more years of profiteering from the care of the ill, elderly and disabled-- the human beings referred to by Mr. Obama as "the new market"-- as they sadistically and without remorse provide mandated coverage that is useless. I think every American who is paying premiums for insurance that fails to provide adequate coverage when it is needed should cancel their policies and stand in solidarity with the 46 million Americans who have no coverage. Once the insurance companies and their Wall Street handlers can no longer employ the president, senators and congresspersons through campaign financing, perhaps we'll get the healthcare system we deserve at a price we can afford. Shame on Mr. Obama, shame on the Congress of the United States, and shame on the media that willingly misinforms, disinforms and lies to the American public.

Posted by divinemrm at 09/10/2009 @ 10:03pm
...Let's cut to the quick: the point is that Americans are still without healthcare, including those who are "covered"....

Posted by divinemrm at 09/10/2009 @ 10:03pm

Didn't you hear your Dear Leader specifically said "30 million"? What's our population?

Your divine math is DOA!

Posted by Happy at 09/10/2009 @ 10:24pm
Obama has a small stick? Is this story some sort of sick penis size issue the writer is having? Obama's penis size is none of John Nichols business.

Posted by Tiger2Lover at 09/10/2009 @ 10:41pm
Yes, 46 million according to the most recent estimates. With a population estimated at 305 million in 2009 that's 15 % of the population.

Now do your homework, go to www. google.com, type in "Americans without health insurance"...... of course this assumes you can read.

Posted by divinemrm at 09/10/2009 @ 11:01pm
I find it fascinating that the media (this fine publication excepted) considers that there's anything in this bill for "the left." There isn't.

A robust public option is favored by between 55% and 75% of Americans once the disinformation has been corrected. That's not a leftist position. If we're a "center-right" country, dear media, that's a center-right position.

When MSNBC features pundits who encourage Obama to "rein in the left wing of the party and tell them they need to compromise, not sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect, and support a bill without a public option," they conveniently forget these statistics.

In fact, these figures are very seldom mentioned in any media, when they should be featured at the beginning of every news story mentioning the public option.

Handing the insurance companies 45 million new customers without addressing their 30% overheads, and getting in return only the promise they'll honor their contract and pay the coverage they promised (which should be required before we even start negotiating) is not a victory, although Obama will try to sell it as such.

Posted by trippin at 09/11/2009 @ 08:13am
Yet another of these rotten Netflix popups!

If you have to annoy the living shit out of me to make a miserable freaking dollar, then screw you. I expect this from some right wing web site, not this one.

Now that I've endured your bullshit for the second time, I might as well post what I intended:

I suspect the discrepancy between 30 million and 45 million uninsured is that there's been a hue and cry that in the 45 million figure, illegal immigrants are included.

I imagine they're wanting to purge any evidence that this bill covers them, although in point of fact, not covering them will cost us vastly more when they show up in emergency rooms.

But no one has the political guts to stand on principle in this country, so we kow-tow to the bigots, the weak of intellect, the paid pervaracators, and the wealthy.

Adios, Netflix. I'll sooner DIE than spend a dime on your annoying throat-ramming. How's that for backlash, you MBA marketing asshole responsible for this torrent of irritation?

Posted by trippin at 09/11/2009 @ 08:22am
A robust public option is favored by between 55% and 75% of Americans once the disinformation has been corrected. That's not a leftist position. If we're a "center-right" country, dear media, that's a center-right position.

When MSNBC features pundits who encourage Obama to "rein in the left wing of the party and tell them they need to compromise, not sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect, and support a bill without a public option," they conveniently forget these statistics.

Posted by trippin at 09/11/2009 @ 08:13am

Right on! Now how do we get lazy minded to get to the point.... Americans want not only a public option, but a single payer system. Even those with private insurance do not feel secure no matter how much they are paying.

As to cost containment, simply take profit out of health care, create a single payer system to eliminate excessive administrative overhead due to the cost of very complicated billing systems and eliminate fraud by instructing patients and their families to review service summaries and report bogus costs. Health care must be delivered in a non-profit environment in which all workers, doctors to housekeepers, are compensated accordingly. "Free markets" are designed to generate wealth and increase profits, and that is as it should be. Asking them to contain costs is akin to asking a drug addict to simply stop taking drugs. "Free market" advocates are as addicted to profit, as meth addicts are to methamphetamines, and both are addictions that are hard to break.

Posted by divinemrm at 09/11/2009 @ 08:44am
A healthcare reform - just an interim step. How many times has social security been amended:

http://tinyurl.com/pxmzs

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/11/2009 @ 11:05am
The public option is just one means to a favorable end. I am for the public option, but I am "more for" stopping the long standing insurance company practices of denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. This is better is my opinion than just having a public option. The real story that is being missed here is insurance company regulation. If the insurance companies are regulated, many of these abuses, such as obscene salaries for execs will end.

Better to have single payer than a public option, which actually seems like a half-measure without meaningful Government insurance regulation.

Posted by stylenease at 09/11/2009 @ 11:58am
Get the big stick here.

I consider it the point that progressives fight back. The Reagan Republiklan revolution aka known as the CRAP EATERS

"Citizens Resisting Anything Progressive, Especially Anything That Enables Real Security" (CRAP EATERS)

did what they did only because corporations funded them. Similarly if we go on a financial boycott against the funders of conservatives in both parties we can force congress to enact progressive legislation.

GO TO HTTP://DEMOCRATZ.ORG to see petitions with immediate emailing to the people we petition. Get others to sign these petitions.

Posted by www.democratz.org at 09/14/2009 @ 06:16am

John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

Obama Speaks Loudly But Carries a Small Stick

posted by John Nichols on 09/09/2009 @ 8:06pm

John Nichols

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation

Obama Speaks Loudly But Carries a Small Stick

posted by John Nichols on 09/09/2009 @ 8:06pm

Share this article

John Nichols

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation