Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I am honestly shocked that I'm the person making this thread. I would have thought you all would be pummeling each other with rhetorical sledgehammers by now.

If you post up in here, BEFORE you begin opining, PLEASE answer the following question: did you WATCH the speech in its entirety?

I am much, much less interested in comments that lack relevancy through not having seen the entire event and which are based on anecdotes trickled out from pundits on morning news shows or brief clips off CNN.com, than I am comments from people who actually saw the speech and who therefore know what they're talking about.

So, yes, I did watch it, all of it. I DVR'ed it so I can watch it again later once I've digested the first run a little more.



First reaction: jesus christ but I love my President. I'm 35 years old and this is the first time I've ever felt that *I* had a President. He's intelligent, thoughtful, knows how to deliver a hell of a speech, hard-working, someone I would actually point out to my kids as someone to look up to.

As I've gotten older, I'm come to think about the President as CiC a lot more often...I think a good President is one who, if he gave me the order to go fight, if he told me the country needed me in arms and potentially sacrificing my life for it, I would answer the call for without question because I trusted him.

I trust Obama. I don't always like him, his style of politics pisses me off sometimes because I think he's too conciliatory (for instance, I think he waited too fething long to give this speech), but I trust him. He inspires confidence, which after the last eight years of chimp-dom is so incredibly refreshing.


Second reaction: I wonder if this was his plan all along. Waiting to give this speech right now, after the session break. He's taken a lot of flak in the media for not delineating what he wanted out of Congress but rather perhaps learning the wrong lesson from Clinton and taking too much of a back seat to the drafting process.

I got to thinking...maybe he knew that the wing-nuts were going to come flying out of the woodwork when this debate began, and he wanted to let the idiots get the steam vented. Maybe he knew that trying to have substantive debate before the wing-nuts had their say was pointless, that the debate would get lost in the shuffle.

All that is spent now. It's been screamed out from the rooftops, disproved, ridiculed, and I really don't think is going to factor into any of this in any meaningful way anymore. Sarah Palin is less relevant than ever thanks to her "death panels" comment...she may have put the final nail in her political coffin with that slowed comment, and good riddance...South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson yelling "You lie!" at Obama may have been the biggest favor the Republicans ever did America. It just goes to show the idiocy on the other side of the aisle...some redneck actually yelling at the President during an address to a joint session of Congress? It makes his whole party seem irrational.

In the end, that's pretty much what it comes down to. The Republicans have nothing substantive to add to this conversation. Their economic theory has proven a disaster. They can't bitch about deficits because the Bush administration and Republican Congress ushered in these record deficits. They have no ideological leg to stand on when it comes to any of this. They're impotent, and I think they know it. Hence Joe Wilson's eloquent retort and excellent manners.


Third reaction: prior to the speech, pundits were trying to couch this not as a game-changer, not the end, but the beginning of the end. I'm not sure...but I think Obama may have gotten to the people he needs to get to.

Hardcore Republicans are out. They were never going to vote for this, but Obama doesn't need them. I suppose that trying to be bipartisan is a noble goal, but politically I think it's stupid. You don't negotiate with a sworn enemy unless you have to. You bury them. It's not like Obama is risking increasing the partisan divide. It's as wide as it's ever been.

One word: reconciliation. 51 votes in the Senate to pass the reform. Obama can get that. It's about riding moderates for their support now, and I think the bully pulpit may do its job. I am never one to believe much in polls, and I know that people polled on the speech are far more likely to be Democrats than Republicans so the data is always in question...so, for now, I will simply hope that the polling data thus far has SOME basis in truth and that Obama's speech will sway independents into supporting the President on this.



Reactions to his proposed plan: the devil's in the details, sure. We were given more of an ideological run-down last night which is yet to be translated into legal language, but:


1) I think it's perfectly reasonable that anyone who can purchase insurance ought to by law. I have friends who have chosen not to get health insurance, and when I think about the cost deferrals which result in higher premiums paid by me it pisses me off.

I don't like paying for health insurance either. It keeps getting more expensive. I have to keep switching plans to get the best price, but get the feth over it. That's life - anyone complaining about having to find the right health care should shut the feth up, because it means they CAN afford health insurance. They're bitching about being able to afford health insurance. That's like bitching about having to make mortgage payments - perhaps you should be lucky you could afford to get a mortgage and make the payments because you own a fething home.


2) I'm glad Obama spoke to tort reform. Defensive medicine sucks. If a doctor amputates the wrong leg yeah, sue the gak out of him, but doctors aren't perfect. Maybe if health care reform allows for more regular check-ups and covers basic tests then doctors will catch more stuff in its early stages and they won't have to practice such defensive medicine, but there does need to be some kind of reform here.

My black sheep Uncle had stomach-stapling, didn't follow his post-op directions, burst the seams and went into a coma for months. He then sued the hospital and eventually they settled for millions.

It was b.s.. My uncle was a stupid feth who didn't follow post-op directions. The hospital shouldn't have paid him a dime...I hope that there's meaningful tort reform which puts SOME responsibility on patients.


3) I'm very glad Obama stuck by the public option. This is a no-brainer; and unless EVERY - SINGLE - LAWMAKER who decries "socialized medicine" is willing, in the same breath, to support a bill immediately repealing Medicare and Medicaid AND is willing to bring that bill to all their Senior Citizen constituents and defend its validity, these contrary lawmakers need to sit the feth down and shut the feth up.

I have a lot of patience for political ethics I disagree with IF THEY ARE CONSISTENT - these hypocritical ladies men who are against a public option out one side of their mouth but who wouldn't DARE try to take away existing government-controlled health care like Medicare and Medicaid are fething cowards, and cowards need to be put in their place, sat down, and silenced.


Those are the three salient points I remember right now...


Last but not least, Ted Kennedy was fething brilliant. I have zero doubt whatsoever that he wrote Obama that letter "to be delivered upon his death" to the President, and specifically for a speech like this. For all I know, the two of them concocted the idea together, but it's brilliant politics. It's not like Obama made that gak up about Ted Kennedy fighting for universal health care and why he did it. It definitely needed to be said, and I don't think anyone could have said it better.

We are very lucky to have a President of this caliber after so many years of just a leadership void in Washington...and honestly, I feel like saying right now that I was never much a fan of Bill Clinton, either. He can't hold a candle to Obama IMHO.

I for one welcome our new healthcare overlords and am sure, absolutely sure, that the hundreds of billions they cut from medicare and medicaide to fund this new pet project will not be missed, at all. Anyone saying they are taking from the elderly to pay for this are clearly not right thinking individuals. They will be educated properly in the new order.

Frazzled wrote:I for one welcome our new healthcare overlords and am sure, absolutely sure, that the hundreds of billions they cut from medicare and medicaide to fund this new pet project will not be missed, at all. Anyone saying they are taking from the elderly to pay for this are clearly not right thinking individuals. They will be educated properly in the new order.

You take money from medicare and medicaid to pay for this because the people on medicare and medicaid will be using this now, with special inclusions for people of certain ages (those on medicare) and those of certain economic status (those on medicaid).

Typeline wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I for one welcome our new healthcare overlords and am sure, absolutely sure, that the hundreds of billions they cut from medicare and medicaide to fund this new pet project will not be missed, at all. Anyone saying they are taking from the elderly to pay for this are clearly not right thinking individuals. They will be educated properly in the new order.

You take money from medicare and medicaid to pay for this because the people on medicare and medicaid will be using this now, with special inclusions for people of certain ages (those on medicare) and those of certain economic status (those on medicaid).

THATS NOT CORRECT!!!

One step closer to becoming the USSA.

Damn commies ,)

On a slightly more serious note, there should be some level of government support to all citizens in terms of medical care, just as there is a minimum wage (set at a level that allows a person to live with a roof over their head, food in their stomach and clothes on their back), there should be a minimum of healthcare that people should not have to pay for directly (ie through health insurance, or simply "footing the bill" on their way out of the hospital/GP's office.

I posted some interesting statistics a while ago illustrating America spends more per head of the population (I believe it was per head) on health care, yet is something like 27th in terms of overall health ranking.

Not the site that I got my data from last time, but has some things to think about none the less: http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php

I really really like our president. I really do, but the health care bill as it sits in the Senate is pure idiocy if only because of the massive amount of money it costs. Here's an idea of the cost of this plan... If you take all of the GROSS income from all of the insurance companies for one year, it will fund this health care bill for three days. If you take the GROSS income from all of the fortune 500 companies for a year and add those funds in, the bill can only run for an additional 5 days. The money involved here is staggering and there is zero chance of it "balancing" out as the President has said. I'm all for reforming health care by placing strong hedges, but the government shouldn't be regulating employer provided health care (which is what they are mandating in the current bill). I'm almost 100% against this bill in its current state, but I'm confident that it will be properly watered down.

Being British I didn't watch the speech, and heard some of it followed by commentary on Radio 4.

The commentary said the rhetoric was excellent, however it remained to be proved that Obama has the moxie to get stuck in on Capitol Hill and fix fix fix until he gets a bill thrashed out.

The economic problem with the whole issue is that the necessary savings have to be made by reducing the profits made by insurance companies. You can't just shuffle money from medicare to mid-life care because elders actually do consume more medical resources (fact of life.) Mid-lifers and the companies they work for are already under the hammer in terms of insurance costs and can hardly be expected to solve the problem by paying more.

Frazzled wrote:

Typeline wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I for one welcome our new healthcare overlords and am sure, absolutely sure, that the hundreds of billions they cut from medicare and medicaide to fund this new pet project will not be missed, at all. Anyone saying they are taking from the elderly to pay for this are clearly not right thinking individuals. They will be educated properly in the new order.

You take money from medicare and medicaid to pay for this because the people on medicare and medicaid will be using this now, with special inclusions for people of certain ages (those on medicare) and those of certain economic status (those on medicaid).

THATS NOT CORRECT!!!

Sure it is!

I can go to town halls and yell it over and over again, that must mean it's correct.

The blunt fact is that the USA spends about 16% of its GDP on healthcare now. Other countries (e.g. UK, Canada, Japan) spend about 8%.

Clearly there is a way to resolve the economic issue. It may be too bitter a pill for US voters to swallow, not on cost grounds, but because of ideology.

Good point KK, another issue that comes up is that in the bill, employers actually get a tax break if they drop employee coverage. Here's how: So right now, employers pay some 18% tax per employee in order to provide health coverage. Under this bill if the employer drops employee coverage they are hit with an 8% tax penalty per employee. Well, they just saved themselves 10% in taxes per employee by dropping them!

Isn't the idea that there really IS no bill to be looking at and analyzing right now?

There are four House bills from committee and the Senate Finance Committee still hasn't produced anything as far as I know...Obama just did what he should have done months ago and set forth what he wants. NOW the bill can be written, and THEN we can analyze it.

In terms of the money, ladies and gentlemen, I give you the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're costing more than health care reform ever will...and there is ZERO RETURN ON INVESTMENT.

We did not get control of the oil. We are not generating profits from those wars. They are economic black holes.

These wars are not bankrupting our economy. We can handle spending the money. Here's an idea - stop fighting stupid, pre-emptive wars and spend the money elsewhere. Health care paid for...and this isn't how you fight Al Qaida anyway. Get rid of the stupid limitations we put on the C.I.A. in the 1970's, train more Special Forces, rapid-deployment troops, sink a ton of money into intelligence, find the enemy and kill him silently while he sleeps.

You don't kill terrorists with Army Groups and Divisions...you kill them with spooks sifting through intel and Deltas slitting their throats.



Anyway...purportedly Obama is meeting with Congresspeople today. He's banging heads together right now.

He made an excellent point about deficits and spending last night during the speech...the same donkey-caves bitching about costs passed the Bush tax plan, an utter disaster, AND paid for two wars, none of which were paid for in the budget. So these bungholes (why did the filter translate "c@cksm@kers" into "ladies men?") have no leg to stand on per NOT voting for health care reform on an economic basis. It's just a matter of which causes they're willing to play the numbers for.

When it comes to the economics, admission time - no one here understands the full ramifications of the costs of this health care reform proposal. No one here is a Harvard-trained economist who has spent six months studying all the necessary data to express an intelligent opinion, and honestly I don't even trust that Harvard-trained economist to know what the feth he is talking about.

This is about ideology and principle. It's about whether or not you think people should have access to health care, and about whether or not you think doctors should have to fear lawsuits to the point of wasting money on stupid tests and medical practices which may be unnecessary. It's about whether you think peoples' coverage should be dropped due to pre-existing conditions, and whether peoples' health or profits are more important.

The details will be figured out - but once there is agreement on principles and ideology, everything else follows. There's plenty of money, probably too much money, in the United States Federal budget right now. More than enough to pay for health care reform. It just means we spend less elsewhere. I may not know all the details, but I know the government is wasting money, I know we're spending a gakload of cash on two wars that need to be over, and I know that it costs a lot of money to pay for the health care of the uninsured.

I'm not worried about the money. I'm worried about consensus of ideology and principle. We're Americans. When we want something done, we do it, and go feth yourself if you tell us we can't do it. That just makes us want to make it happen even more so that we can show you the results and smugly flip you off.

Remember what the commander of the 101st Airborne told the German commander at Bastogne when he received the German's willingness to discuss the American surrender? *grin*

You can't have agreement without the "details" as you call it, if you consider such minor details like how the &^(^ we pay for this, what the triggers are etc. etc.

We're where we were three months ago, except of course, Obama's trust levels are way down.


There is no agreement on principles.

Cairnius wrote:
In terms of the money, ladies and gentlemen, I give you the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're costing more than health care reform ever will...and there is ZERO RETURN ON INVESTMENT.

The war in Afghanistan costs about 60 billion a year, health care reform estimated cost is over 100 billion a year. That figure still estimates that several million people will not be covered for one reason or another. Total cost within ten years for the (several) reform bill(s) is (are) just shy of 2 trillion dollars. This isn't even accounting for the negative ripple effect that will shoot through the pharma industry as well as lost incentives for doctors etc.

I agree that the wars are somewhat superfluous and that the Afghanistan war should end ASAP, however large health care reform simply can't be paid for and will increase the national debt far quicker than war does.


http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/the-cost-of-health-care-reform/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVFdAJRVm94

Actually, Obama's trust levels just got a major bump is what it looks like thus far.

The more I think about it, I think he was quiet on purpose for all these months. He let the kids fight in the back seat for a while, and then he pulled the car over, turned around, and said "ENOUGH!"

If there's ANY truth to these polls, the clear majority of Americans support his plan. Now he's going to hold Congress' feet to the fire and get it done.

Every single time I second-guess him, turns out he's smarter than I am and might actually know what the feth he's doing. Good for him. I WANT a President who's smarter than I am. I can't really accept anyone else as a leader. I'm not going to follow the orders of someone who I know to be stupid...which is why I couldn't join the military after high school. I knew I'd be taking orders from dumbasses for a long time but be unable to say anything about it...

Deleted to stop a flame war. What a peacemaker I am.

Cairnius wrote:When it comes to the economics, admission time - no one here understands the full ramifications of the costs of this health care reform proposal. No one here is a Harvard-trained economist who has spent six months studying all the necessary data to express an intelligent opinion, and honestly I don't even trust that Harvard-trained economist to know what the feth he is talking about.

Hilarious .

At this point I think Obama has just tipped the dominoes, and we are in for quite a bit of proper news in the next few weeks. It has been dreadfully obvious that the majority of Republicans have drawn a line in the sand, and that line has basically been tied into the entire parties legend; but I digress .

What I saw was Obama speaking quite a bit about all of the things that he has been saying for a very long time now, with minor adjustments according to the new developments. One thing that I found a bit odd, was the President's sincere finger pointing at the media. Not too sure that is really the best idea, but I doubt it will hurt him very much.

Dunno really... seemed like yesterdays news brought back by the dog in all honesty. Sticking to his guns I think would be the best way to put it... but his guns seem to be awfully deringer-like, and without the staying power of a blunderbuss, I highly doubt the current administration will really take a big bite out of this problem.

Cairnius wrote:Actually, Obama's trust levels just got a major bump is what it looks like thus far.

Actually his approval percentages went down from yesterday to today.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

youngblood wrote:The war in Afghanistan...

Wars. Not war. More than 60 billion a year; and estimates are estimates. They're never right.

youngblood wrote:This isn't even accounting for the negative ripple effect that will shoot through the pharma industry as well as lost incentives for doctors etc.

What about the positive ripple effects of tons of new customers? The pharma industry is actually behind Obama's plan...what you lose in higher prices you more than make up for in higher volume.

youngblood wrote: large health care reform simply can't be paid for and will increase the national debt far quicker than war does.

Speculative. We have no idea whether this is true or not, and won't until the reform has been in play for a while. The Urban Institute study that NY Times blog referenced was quite speculative...and quite honestly, there's a reason why I said I didn't trust the Harvard-educated economist. Show me everyone who called the tech sector bursting in the late 90's when I worked in the stock market for a year as a Compliance officer. Show me everyone who called the housing bubble bursting a few years ago.

Economists are good for "what-if" scenarios and explaining what Keynes meant, but as predictors they're proving to be rather gak. I think our old economic models may be losing their relevance in an integrated world economy. We need some new ones, perhaps.

If there's ANY truth to these polls, the clear majority of Americans support his plan. Now he's going to hold Congress' feet to the fire and get it done.
****************

Thats er, wrong bigtime.
Gallup: 39% against 37% for (pre speech)
Rasmussen: 53% oppose, 44% support (post speech)

youngblood wrote:

Cairnius wrote:Actually, Obama's trust levels just got a major bump is what it looks like thus far.

Actually his approval percentages went down from yesterday to today.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

One poll. If you want to get serious, do the real work and start pulling aggregate totals and such...and then go do it again because by the time you have presented your data it's all different...and then go do it again because THAT data is wrong now...

And wasn't that a single percentage point? Give us at least three or four if you want to tilt that windmill.

I put very little faith into polling. My point was that there are still gak loads of people that doubt the president's plan and with good reason. There is no huge bump in trust. America's skeptical. They should be, but respectfully skeptical.


I concede. I can't argue with someone who doesn't believe experts. *Throws in towel and goes to the showers... farting on Cairnius' towel on the way*



Glad that we can at least debate this gak. Iran would just shut Dakka down.

Iran... or China, which I consider to have more much potential in the humorous clout department... for various reasons, which are not needed information... pokemon, way too much rice, smog, and... I think they invented death.... pretty sure about that one actually.

Wait... joke fail, we have People Republic of Dakka... people as in one or two posters I think. Korea and Japan just pwn in that area, but I digress profusely and with tangential... lost it, totally gone, never mind.

Wrexasaur wrote:I think they invented death.... pretty sure about that one actually.

If I weren't so tired, I'd add that to my sig.

youngblood wrote:

Actually his approval percentages went down from yesterday to today.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

One poll. If you want to get serious, do the real work and start pulling aggregate totals and such...and then go do it again because by the time you have presented your data it's all different...and then go do it again because THAT data is wrong now...

And wasn't that a single percentage point? Give us at least three or four if you want to tilt that windmill.


"Two out of three Americans who watched President Barack Obama's health care reform speech Wednesday night favor his health care plans — a 14-point gain among speech-watchers, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation national poll of people who tuned into Obama's address Wednesday night to a joint session of Congress."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

There's a reason why I asked people to state whether they watched the speech last night, Frazzled - because they're the only people who have a clue whether to support the president or not. You don't know if those Gallup and Rasmussen polls are polling people who actually saw the speech and can judge in context, or whether those are imbeciles just going on what they're getting from Faux News.

If someone didn't see the speech, didn't hear the entirety of what he's proposing such that they can judge the whole argument on its presented merits, I no more want to hear from them than I want to hear from someone opining on French history who's never opened up a history book.


And youngblood - read up on the "myth of expertise." Who decides who is an "expert?" Do you know what qualifies someone as an "expert" or does someone else tell you who an "expert" is? Do you examine the qualifications of every "expert?" Do you know how often they've predicted something and how often they've been right, and how often they've been wrong, to know whether you should listen to them and to what degree?

You hand away a great deal of your will whenever you bow down to "the expert;" and if recent history has taught us anything it is nothing if not that economists often have no fething clue what they're talking about when it comes to predicting the future. Two MAJOR economic sectors that crashed in a decade, the latter much more critically than the former admittedly, without anyone seeing it ahead of time or planning for it.

"Experts." Sure. Either they were stupid and didn't see it, or complicit in which case I don't trust them. I'll listen to "experts" and take their aggregate feedback as potentialities but not probabilities, thank you.

He types so fast that I can see him edit ... 4 times... no 5 times... wait... no just 5 times .

Anyone who complains about "socialism" - how do you feel about the fire department?

Once upon a time, fire departments were privatized. Once upon a time, people would be issued plaques that they placed on their houses, that would indicate who they had paid for fire protection, and the private fire departments would concentrate on ensuring that the fire didn't spread to their client's homes.

What about water treatment? Should we privatize the sewage treatment industry, lest people become concerned about the socialist nature of our water supply.

Whining about how government involvement in anything is socialist is stupid. The government bailed out the banks and took a partial ownership in several banks and several auto manufacturers. Was this socialist?

My opposition to government controlled health care has nothing to do with the red herring cries of socialism. It's based in realism. Name one thing that government does well? (Well, other than having a fire department and getting us clean water - *gasp* the socialist things)

The IRS is a huge bloated mess of bureaucracy. INS is a joke. And the proposals for national healthcare are just slapping more band-aids on an already broken system - another layer of bureaucracy that the government can screw up. It does nothing to address the real issue - that the costs of healthcare are too high because of where the money ends up going. All it does is put another layer onto this system to squeeze more money out of the middle class in order to pay for it.

Yeah, cutting the costs out involves lawyers, insurance people, and pharmaceuticals accepting less. They won't. They'll fight tooth and nail to keep their profits. They'll lobby hard. This country cannot even get past a tobacco lobby, what makes anyone think that these costs will go away?

You quoted CNN which poled twice as many democrats as republicans. I didn't read anything after that.

I too am quitting this thread. I'm not into arguing more than a few posts with a true believer.

Obama, the President of the United States is the leader of the American Imperium, and in the Imperial creed, the Father, Guardian and God of Mankind. He was born in the form of an ordinary man, possessing incredible intellect and physical strength and easily the most powerful entity the galaxy has ever seen. Only he has the vision and the power to unite all the tribes of man into one vast galaxy spanning empire. It is he who created the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and taught humanity how to use the Health Care Bill - H.R.3200 to travel the stars.

I'm just saying they went to school for years, they are students of their given field, whether it be medicine, economics, etc. You are not. To dismiss their estimations as insignificant would be foolish.

As far as polling goes, again I said that I don't place much faith in it. It's an incomplete picture at best and public manipulation at worst. CNN poll isn't worth gak because it was conducted on people who watched the coverage on CNN and if you look at the political demographics of the poll, only 18% were republican. Of course it will look like they loved his plan! Jesus Christ, follow your own advise and look at the details of this gak.

Following Frazzled out the door...