Obama's Most Important Speech Ever (until the next one) Live Discussion

[Democratic Hawk]

I was surprised at how often McCain applauded when most Republicans didn't. Shows he actually cares.

Pelosi seemed to faintly scowl a few times when Obama talked about his more moderate proposals. I also liked when he brought up malpractice reform, only time he got partisan Republican applause.

What was up with those Democrats cheering for single-payer? They make themselves look so bad. Of course, there were Republicans who didn't clap for the making denials for preexisting conditions illegal, so I guess they balance each others irrationality

He seemed to get applause from the Republicans when he pledged that he would not sign any bill if it wasn't deficit neutral. Ironic considering they never held George W Bush to that. Perhaps, the fiscal state of affairs wouldn't have been anywhere as bad if they had done so. Any one can cut taxes, any one can ramp up spending but raising taxes, however, modestly to - shock horror - pay for things takes a spine . Obama is displaying the kind of leadership, Bush lacked on that score for start

As for many Republicans, they seem oblivious to the adverse impact rising costs of healthcare have had on employers, employees and wider economic well-being. As for any "public option" - seemingly the major bone of contention - that, if anything by what was said, is something the president conceives as being an insurance provider of the 'last resort'

[Badger]

Republicans just hate things that cost less than two wars and a tax cut for the rich. THEY DON'T CARE FOR IT AT ALL.

Lief = Epic FF

[Badger]

This speech was a partisan spectacle at best. He provided nothing new, only anger and bitterness.

I'd hardly describe calling out most Republicans for spreading bald faced lies such as death panels, etc, etc. etc. etc as "anger and bitterness". Your radar for detecting anger and bitterness in this debate seems just a tad selective.

[Democratic Hawk]

This speech was a partisan spectacle at best. He provided nothing new, only anger and bitterness.

I'd hardly describe calling out most Republicans for spreading bald faced lies such as death panels, etc, etc. etc. etc as "anger and bitterness". Your radar for detecting anger and bitterness in this debate seems just a tad selective.

The President, to fair, is entitled to be angry. He cares about people ; indeed, empathy was a quality on which he trounced McCain last fall

[Ban my account ffs!]

This speech was a partisan spectacle at best. He provided nothing new, only anger and bitterness.

I'd hardly describe calling out most Republicans for spreading bald faced lies such as death panels, etc, etc. etc. etc as "anger and bitterness". Your radar for detecting anger and bitterness in this debate seems just a tad selective.

The President, to fair, is entitled to be angry. He cares about people ; indeed, empathy was a quality on which he trounced McCain last fall

Well, a traumatic experience like being a tortured prisoner of war can do two things:  Fill you with empathy or drain you of it.

That is not to say that John McCain doesn't have a big heart and a lot of sympathy for people.. but empathy is a much different beast.. and it's something we need more of.

[Silent Hunter]

This speech was a partisan spectacle at best. He provided nothing new, only anger and bitterness.

I'd hardly describe calling out most Republicans for spreading bald faced lies such as death panels, etc, etc. etc. etc as "anger and bitterness". Your radar for detecting anger and bitterness in this debate seems just a tad selective.

The President, to fair, is entitled to be angry. He cares about people ; indeed, empathy was a quality on which he trounced McCain last fall

Except he didn't "trounce" McCain- he only won by about six points.

[Brittain33]

Except he didn't "trounce" McCain- he only won by about six points.

7.2 points in the popular vote and 2-1 in the electoral college. For an American presidential election, that's a trouncing. It's not a landslide, but it's a trouncing.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Except he didn't "trounce" McCain- he only won by about six points.

7.2 points in the popular vote and 2-1 in the electoral college. For an American presidential election, that's a trouncing. It's not a landslide, but it's a trouncing.

Cold comfort for McCain.

[Silent Hunter]

Except he didn't "trounce" McCain- he only won by about six points.

7.2 points in the popular vote and 2-1 in the electoral college. For an American presidential election, that's a trouncing. It's not a landslide, but it's a trouncing.

I'd disagree. Not compared with 1980, 1992 and 1996. Emphatic, yes, but not a trouncing, which I'm now defining as 10-15 points.

[Brittain33]

I'd disagree. Not compared with 1980, 1992 and 1996. Emphatic, yes, but not a trouncing, which I'm now defining as 10-15 points.

I think 1980 was a markedly bigger victory, particularly in the electoral college. But I would pretty easily compare 2008 to 1992 and 1996 in both popular vote and electoral vote totals. Especially because the third party scrambled things; few people would disagree that Obama had at least as clear a mandate as Clinton did, and moreso when compared to 1992.

Lots of states that were supposed to be close and which Bush won in a close election in 2004, went for Obama by huge margins. States that were never considered competitive for Democrats in the past (NC, IN) or shouldn't have been considered so (VA) went for Obama. Traditional battleground like MI and PA were easy, easy Obama wins. McCain never had a chance to win and he didn't even keep it close. I think we can agree that residual racism is what kept Obama's win from being closer to a 1980-style win, with Republicans limited to the Mormon corridor, a few plains states, and parts of the deep south.

[Stampever]

Semantics.  McCain was owned in the EC.  That's all that matters.

[Brittain33]

Semantics.

I can agree with that.

[Silent Hunter]

Semantics.  McCain was owned in the EC.  That's all that matters.

Not that owned. Compared with some other elections.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Semantics.  McCain was owned in the EC.  That's all that matters.

Not that owned. Compared with some other elections.

Yes I 'm sure McCain is so much more relieved at that.

[MODU]

What is funny is that the insurance exchange concept Obama mentioned could only work if the Bush proposal for allowing people to buy insurance outside of their state would be passed.  Otherwise, the insurance exchange would only be available through the existing insurance companies operating within the consumers area, and as Obama properly mentioned, that could be just a single provider if you live in a few states.

Maybe this is a sign that both sides have realistic ideas towards achieving a sensible conclusion to this problem without resorting to Pelosi's dream of welfare a public option.

[Brittain33]

What is funny is that the insurance exchange concept Obama mentioned could only work if the Bush proposal for allowing people to buy insurance outside of their state would be passed.  Otherwise, the insurance exchange would only be available through the existing insurance companies operating within the consumers area, and as Obama properly mentioned, that could be just a single provider if you live in a few states.

The problem with selling insurance across state lines without concomitant federal regulation is that you'd have some state emerge as Delaware. All the major insurance companies would move to the state whose legislature sells them the most hands off, "light touch" regulatory environment and hires regulators who plan to retire to work for BC/BS or UHC after putting in their time. That would be great for the insurance companies and for that state, but not necessarily in the consumers' interest. People in states which mandate that insurance cover mental health or birth control won't be thrilled if their employers now give them a choice of plans, all offering neither, or if the exchange only offers that coverage as expensive add-ons that negate their value.

If we sell insurance across state lines, it would have to be with federal regulation, because otherwise Delaware (or Alabama, or Wyoming) will set de facto federal regulation. Bush wouldn't have supported that. I'm not sure what the appetite is in Washington for it, either.

[Torie]

What is funny is that the insurance exchange concept Obama mentioned could only work if the Bush proposal for allowing people to buy insurance outside of their state would be passed.  Otherwise, the insurance exchange would only be available through the existing insurance companies operating within the consumers area, and as Obama properly mentioned, that could be just a single provider if you live in a few states.

The problem with selling insurance across state lines without concomitant federal regulation is that you'd have some state emerge as Delaware. All the major insurance companies would move to the state whose legislature sells them the most hands off, "light touch" regulatory environment and hires regulators who plan to retire to work for BC/BS or UHC after putting in their time. That would be great for the insurance companies and for that state, but not necessarily in the consumers' interest. People in states which mandate that insurance cover mental health or birth control won't be thrilled if their employers now give them a choice of plans, all offering neither, or if the exchange only offers that coverage as expensive add-ons that negate their value.

If we sell insurance across state lines, it would have to be with federal regulation, because otherwise Delaware (or Alabama, or Wyoming) will set de facto federal regulation. Bush wouldn't have supported that. I'm not sure what the appetite is in Washington for it, either.

Of course the insurance companies would need to be regulated on a national basis if allowed to go national. I don't think that aspect is much in dispute. Granted, there might be disagreements as to what those regulations entail, as indeed I disagree with much of  the highly constrictive and anti-market regulations that are contained in the House bill, including provisions restricting the contours of private plans, not only as a minimum floor, but also for more expansive tiers, none of which makes sense but for the effecting of the intended squeeze play to suffocate such plans to death over time.

[MODU]

The problem with selling insurance across state lines without concomitant federal regulation is that you'd have some state emerge as Delaware. All the major insurance companies would move to the state whose legislature sells them the most hands off, "light touch" regulatory environment and hires regulators who plan to retire to work for BC/BS or UHC after putting in their time. That would be great for the insurance companies and for that state, but not necessarily in the consumers' interest. People in states which mandate that insurance cover mental health or birth control won't be thrilled if their employers now give them a choice of plans, all offering neither, or if the exchange only offers that coverage as expensive add-ons that negate their value.

That isn't necessarily a bad thing.  Delaware needed the tax base due to their small size, so it was a win-win for the two entities.  As far as the impact that would have on consumer interest, that would be easy for the states and federal government to control.  Going back to the example of the minimum wage system, the federal goverment would establish the bare minimum requirements for the insurance plans that the companies have to provide nation wide.  From there, the individual states could add to that minimum to meet the desires of their population.  Additionally, if some states are already providing some of the care items themselves, there wouldn't be a duplication (aka waste) in services provided. At that point, the consumer can choose what additional coverage they want.

[Silent Hunter]

Can someone explain the basic proposal to me please via a PM?

[anvi]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is why they are trying to repackage it as some harmless thing, that will cover few (5% is the figure floated), and really just be around for the few who fall through the cracks, in a attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

I think they are trying to repackage the public option for House liberals who want it.  The House liberals think the public option will be the bulk of the package that will eventually, as you imply above, perform the "squeeze play" on private insurers.  By repackaging, the administration is trying to make the public option look like a small, and dispensible, part of the bill so that, after the House and Senate each pass a bill, the House confereees will be more inclined to give it away in order to pass a final bill.  It's been obvious, to me anyway, that the White House has been willing to cede the public option in order to get a health care bill through congress since February.  The minimization of the public option is an attempt by the administration to soften up the ground on the way to that conclusion with House Democrats, and not an attempt to make congressional Republicans less afraid of it.