Obama’s Health Care Speech

Here is the President’s speech to Congress in which he makes his case for Health Care reform. Are you persuaded?

Here is his explanation of the system he wants to implement:

First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.

What this plan will do is to make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies – because there’s no reason we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.

That’s what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan – more security and stability.

Now, if you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans who don’t currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange – a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It’s how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it’s time to give every American the same opportunity that we’ve given ourselves.

For those individuals and small businesses who still cannot afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we will provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need. And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned. This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right. In the meantime, for those Americans who can’t get insurance today because they have pre-existing medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill. This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign, it’s a good idea now, and we should embrace it.

What’s wrong with this? It uses private insurance companies, rather than a nationalized system, so it avoids socialized medicine. I don’t see how this system can possibly reduce the cost of health care or of health insurance, one of the urgent issues he raises in his speech. If we require insurance companies to insure everyone who applies, even if they have pre-existing conditions, and if the companies are not allowed to cap any payouts, how can this not send premiums even higher? The idea of a health insurance exchange sounds like an acknowledgment of the power of free market competition to drive down prices, but prices can’t go lower than the intrinsic cost of the commodity. If someone can explain this or can make even a theoretical case for how this plan could mean lower health care costs, please comment. I really want to know.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Rose

    Of course this won’t lower health costs. The government pays only 80% of the billed costs of Medicare, so providers shift the cost to everyone in private insurance. Expanding government-guaranteed coverage will worsen this. Obama is disingenuous when he repeats that ‘you can keep your coverage’. Many employers will drop private insurance if government insurance is available.

  • Rose

    Of course this won’t lower health costs. The government pays only 80% of the billed costs of Medicare, so providers shift the cost to everyone in private insurance. Expanding government-guaranteed coverage will worsen this. Obama is disingenuous when he repeats that ‘you can keep your coverage’. Many employers will drop private insurance if government insurance is available.

  • Matt C.

    There are a few major problems:

    1) It is going to radically increase the cost of health care. Robust insurance separating cost from patient choice is one of the major factors causing the inflation. Increasing all coverage and adding a new insurance company will only exacerbate the problem.

    2) It’s forcing insurance companies to become charities. You cannot “insure” against a pre-existing condition because there is no risk to insure against–only a certainty. Likewise for the addition of routine care. One might argue for the necessity of charity (even government charity), but forcing a for-profit business to simultaneously act as a charity means that it will do neither well. In light of this, the President is not forcing the young and healthy into the system to reduce costs, but to pay for everyone else. In this sense, it remains socialized medicine.

    3) I’m very curious how the government option will supposedly operate with no taxpayer money when its very purpose is to insure people who cannot afford insurance. Reducing overhead? Vague handwaving about eliminating waste (something the government has historically been VERY effective at, right?) I don’t see how this is anything other than a lie disguised as wishful thinking.

    When you add huge new costs to private insurers and make them compete against what will inevitably be a taxpayer-funded government option, the end result will be a single-payer system–socialized health-care. It may be hidden behind incompetance and ignorance of the law of unintended consequences, but for all the President’s talk about a third way, this remains a proposal for socialized health care; it will just radically increase the costs and make things worse before it goes into effect. Except for the bit about actually paying for what we spend (we’ll see how long that lasts), this combines the worst of all possible approaches.

  • Matt C.

    There are a few major problems:

    1) It is going to radically increase the cost of health care. Robust insurance separating cost from patient choice is one of the major factors causing the inflation. Increasing all coverage and adding a new insurance company will only exacerbate the problem.

    2) It’s forcing insurance companies to become charities. You cannot “insure” against a pre-existing condition because there is no risk to insure against–only a certainty. Likewise for the addition of routine care. One might argue for the necessity of charity (even government charity), but forcing a for-profit business to simultaneously act as a charity means that it will do neither well. In light of this, the President is not forcing the young and healthy into the system to reduce costs, but to pay for everyone else. In this sense, it remains socialized medicine.

    3) I’m very curious how the government option will supposedly operate with no taxpayer money when its very purpose is to insure people who cannot afford insurance. Reducing overhead? Vague handwaving about eliminating waste (something the government has historically been VERY effective at, right?) I don’t see how this is anything other than a lie disguised as wishful thinking.

    When you add huge new costs to private insurers and make them compete against what will inevitably be a taxpayer-funded government option, the end result will be a single-payer system–socialized health-care. It may be hidden behind incompetance and ignorance of the law of unintended consequences, but for all the President’s talk about a third way, this remains a proposal for socialized health care; it will just radically increase the costs and make things worse before it goes into effect. Except for the bit about actually paying for what we spend (we’ll see how long that lasts), this combines the worst of all possible approaches.

  • http://www.pagantolutheran.blogspot.com Bruce Gee

    If the government is serious about fixing the abuses in medicare/medicaid, let them show us the fix in practice before we trust them to get any more involved in the whole business. In the meantime, they CAN get involved by allowing/forcing insurance companies to compete across state lines, and by doing something concrete about tort reform.

    Before I am asked to trust government to do something as big as the president is asking, I’d like to see some real movement on these other fronts first. The idea of government actually saving the money before spending it has a lot of appeal.

    Boy, I would have enjoyed the President’s speech a lot more if I hadn’t had to see Biden/Pelosi in the back ground. I can’t help but think that that backdrop had to hurt his chances with the American people.

  • http://www.pagantolutheran.blogspot.com Bruce Gee

    If the government is serious about fixing the abuses in medicare/medicaid, let them show us the fix in practice before we trust them to get any more involved in the whole business. In the meantime, they CAN get involved by allowing/forcing insurance companies to compete across state lines, and by doing something concrete about tort reform.

    Before I am asked to trust government to do something as big as the president is asking, I’d like to see some real movement on these other fronts first. The idea of government actually saving the money before spending it has a lot of appeal.

    Boy, I would have enjoyed the President’s speech a lot more if I hadn’t had to see Biden/Pelosi in the back ground. I can’t help but think that that backdrop had to hurt his chances with the American people.

  • scots

    >>If someone can explain this or can make even a theoretical case for how this plan could mean lower health care costs, please comment. I really want to know.<<

    Sure! Two words

    Tort

    Reform

    Which leads to the next question? Why no mention of torte reform from our honest and sincere leader? (for best effect, read with dryness)

  • scots

    >>If someone can explain this or can make even a theoretical case for how this plan could mean lower health care costs, please comment. I really want to know.<<

    Sure! Two words

    Tort

    Reform

    Which leads to the next question? Why no mention of torte reform from our honest and sincere leader? (for best effect, read with dryness)

  • Paul E.

    I don’t understand how the President can say with a straight face that the entire price tag of the program, about $900,000 million, is going to be paid for by eliminating waste and fraud in Medicare/Medicaid. If the President is not aware, Medicare and Medicaid are both huge unfunded liabilities for the US, to the tune of about $30,000,000 million. If there is $900,000 million in waste and fraud in Medicare/Medicaid, perhaps it should be used to pay for those programs instead of putting it toward another huge unfunded liability. Why is Obama only going to track down this waste and fraud if his health reform bill is passed? As CEO of the United States, isn’t it his fiduciary responsibility to get rid of inefficiencies in the system? I just made myself laugh a little there.

  • Paul E.

    I don’t understand how the President can say with a straight face that the entire price tag of the program, about $900,000 million, is going to be paid for by eliminating waste and fraud in Medicare/Medicaid. If the President is not aware, Medicare and Medicaid are both huge unfunded liabilities for the US, to the tune of about $30,000,000 million. If there is $900,000 million in waste and fraud in Medicare/Medicaid, perhaps it should be used to pay for those programs instead of putting it toward another huge unfunded liability. Why is Obama only going to track down this waste and fraud if his health reform bill is passed? As CEO of the United States, isn’t it his fiduciary responsibility to get rid of inefficiencies in the system? I just made myself laugh a little there.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    What Bruce says. If indeed rooting out Medicare fraud and such would save half a trillion bucks, let’s get a bill to do that, and just that, on the table before we mess with everything else. Comprehensive bills are generally simply prevent the bills from being adequately debated before the vote.

    (and reality is that if anything, Medicare is already underfunded….this was not one of Obama’s better moments vis a vis Exodus 20:16)

    Powerline did a great summary of the speech, and to sum it up, pointed out that it really wasn’t directed at thinking people. Hinderaker was exactly right; the blurbs I heard really deserved a rousing shout of “B***s***!!” from the entire Congress.

    The fact of the matter is that Obama was lying and posturing, and he knows it, and he’s hoping his buddies in the media don’t help people figure it out.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    What Bruce says. If indeed rooting out Medicare fraud and such would save half a trillion bucks, let’s get a bill to do that, and just that, on the table before we mess with everything else. Comprehensive bills are generally simply prevent the bills from being adequately debated before the vote.

    (and reality is that if anything, Medicare is already underfunded….this was not one of Obama’s better moments vis a vis Exodus 20:16)

    Powerline did a great summary of the speech, and to sum it up, pointed out that it really wasn’t directed at thinking people. Hinderaker was exactly right; the blurbs I heard really deserved a rousing shout of “B***s***!!” from the entire Congress.

    The fact of the matter is that Obama was lying and posturing, and he knows it, and he’s hoping his buddies in the media don’t help people figure it out.

  • Dave Spotts

    Why does this take four years to put into effect? Could it have something to do with the next presidential election cycle ending just over three years from now? Hmmm.

    I see no way that expanding requirements that insurance companies pay for things or accept new customers can possibly reduce prices.

  • Dave Spotts

    Why does this take four years to put into effect? Could it have something to do with the next presidential election cycle ending just over three years from now? Hmmm.

    I see no way that expanding requirements that insurance companies pay for things or accept new customers can possibly reduce prices.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Basically, another campaign speech that proposes health-care nirvana that is revenue neutral. He must think that the American people have just fallen off the turnip cart.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Basically, another campaign speech that proposes health-care nirvana that is revenue neutral. He must think that the American people have just fallen off the turnip cart.

  • http://www.pagantolutheran.blogspot.com Bruce Gee

    We have to be careful in evaluating the president’s speech to take into account the crazy diverse population he has been called to serve. His base is pretty far left; he had to be able to toss them a bone. His issues are really with the Bluedogs, so his message had to contain something that appeased them. He did this by ostensibly taking the prospect of a huge government takeover off the table, at least for now. But in doing so he probably ticked off his base as much as anyone.
    This was a political speech. I loved the guy–Senator?–sitting with a sign in his lap which read “What Bill?”.
    Listening to a moderate radio commentator in Madison today (Mitch Henck) interview one of the most liberal pols in the state, I was amazed to hear the criticism of the speech coming from the pol. He didn’t believe Obama’s claim that only 5-7% would join the proposed government health program. He didn’t really care how it was funded. His take was, either we go all the way with a single payer system, or start over. After all, he said, the Brits and Canadians LOVE their health care system. Egad.

    My final thought of the evening: would Obama ever have given this speech if the August recess hadn’t happened? I think not.

  • http://www.pagantolutheran.blogspot.com Bruce Gee

    We have to be careful in evaluating the president’s speech to take into account the crazy diverse population he has been called to serve. His base is pretty far left; he had to be able to toss them a bone. His issues are really with the Bluedogs, so his message had to contain something that appeased them. He did this by ostensibly taking the prospect of a huge government takeover off the table, at least for now. But in doing so he probably ticked off his base as much as anyone.
    This was a political speech. I loved the guy–Senator?–sitting with a sign in his lap which read “What Bill?”.
    Listening to a moderate radio commentator in Madison today (Mitch Henck) interview one of the most liberal pols in the state, I was amazed to hear the criticism of the speech coming from the pol. He didn’t believe Obama’s claim that only 5-7% would join the proposed government health program. He didn’t really care how it was funded. His take was, either we go all the way with a single payer system, or start over. After all, he said, the Brits and Canadians LOVE their health care system. Egad.

    My final thought of the evening: would Obama ever have given this speech if the August recess hadn’t happened? I think not.

  • jim_claybourn

    Paul E. said:
    “I don’t understand how the President can say with a straight face that the entire price tag of the program, about $900,000 million, is going to be paid for by eliminating waste and fraud in Medicare/Medicaid. If the President is not aware, Medicare and Medicaid are both huge unfunded liabilities for the US, to the tune of about $30,000,000 million.”

    Not only did he make that comment, he also “assured” us that he would not par for the new plan by dipping into the Medicare “trust fund” (or something to that effect) as if there was a surplus floating around somewhere because Medicare was doing so well. Did anyone else catch that remark near the end of the speech?

  • jim_claybourn

    Paul E. said:
    “I don’t understand how the President can say with a straight face that the entire price tag of the program, about $900,000 million, is going to be paid for by eliminating waste and fraud in Medicare/Medicaid. If the President is not aware, Medicare and Medicaid are both huge unfunded liabilities for the US, to the tune of about $30,000,000 million.”

    Not only did he make that comment, he also “assured” us that he would not par for the new plan by dipping into the Medicare “trust fund” (or something to that effect) as if there was a surplus floating around somewhere because Medicare was doing so well. Did anyone else catch that remark near the end of the speech?

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    I think the idea is to destabilize the system to the point where a single payer system (i.e.e socialized medicine) is the only workable solution.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    I think the idea is to destabilize the system to the point where a single payer system (i.e.e socialized medicine) is the only workable solution.

  • http://www.lambert-blog.com Dave Lambert

    Be sure to read Tevi Troy’s posting on “What the President Should have Said” at
    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODQzODdlNTJkYTEyNjJiYjlmZWNkNDY5MmJjMjQ1OWY=

  • http://www.lambert-blog.com Dave Lambert

    Be sure to read Tevi Troy’s posting on “What the President Should have Said” at
    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODQzODdlNTJkYTEyNjJiYjlmZWNkNDY5MmJjMjQ1OWY=

  • Purple Koolaid

    Great!! I think I’ll go without insurance until something happens and then I’ll sign up for it. No need to pay premiums for years and years when I don’t have anything serious. I’ll wait until that biopsy comes back cancerous, and then I’ll get insurance!

  • Purple Koolaid

    Great!! I think I’ll go without insurance until something happens and then I’ll sign up for it. No need to pay premiums for years and years when I don’t have anything serious. I’ll wait until that biopsy comes back cancerous, and then I’ll get insurance!

  • Purple Koolaid

    and PS, I won’t buy life insurance until I’m on my deathbed either. Maybe Obama could change that too.

  • Purple Koolaid

    and PS, I won’t buy life insurance until I’m on my deathbed either. Maybe Obama could change that too.

  • Bob

    Wow, what a week President Obama is having.

    First he mints millions of young Marxists with his 5-minute
    school speech.

    Now he flips the health care debate.

    Miller Time!

  • Bob

    Wow, what a week President Obama is having.

    First he mints millions of young Marxists with his 5-minute
    school speech.

    Now he flips the health care debate.

    Miller Time!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I’m (a) not necessarily a fan of anything that’s yet been proposed in Congress, (b) not at all convinced about any claims as to what such things will cost, and (c) even less convinced that there’s value in taking the time to say anything less than 100% negative in this particular echo chamber (by which I refer to this thread, not this blog), but …

    I’ve seen at least two cost-reducing claims put forth, although I don’t remember which, if either, is held by the congressional proponents of the bills. One is that there is a pool of healthy people out there who currently do not have health insurance, either because (1) they’re healthy, why waste money on insurance, or (2) they’re poor, but generally healthy, so they choose to spend their money elsewhere. By adding these people to the insurance pool (by requiring everyone to have insurance), costs will go down, they say, since they will still pay premiums but incur less than the average insured person. Of course, I have no idea how many of these people there are.

    The second claim is that preventative treatments are cheaper than emergency care. In many cases, this is true (e.g. treating a wound when it happens, rather than when gangrene sets in), although not always. There’s also the fact that emergency care for the indigent currently happens in emergency rooms, which are insanely more expensive than a trip to the doctor. The proposed reforms would shift the poor and insurance-less away from using the former, towards the latter. This will save costs. But I don’t have data on whether this will save money, in aggregate.

    And then, sure, cutting costs, reforming Medicare, blah blah blah.

    But then, I get the impression that, of the folks here, maybe only Veith is interested in these arguments, and he has likely heard them. But hey, I’m sticking to the original post!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I’m (a) not necessarily a fan of anything that’s yet been proposed in Congress, (b) not at all convinced about any claims as to what such things will cost, and (c) even less convinced that there’s value in taking the time to say anything less than 100% negative in this particular echo chamber (by which I refer to this thread, not this blog), but …

    I’ve seen at least two cost-reducing claims put forth, although I don’t remember which, if either, is held by the congressional proponents of the bills. One is that there is a pool of healthy people out there who currently do not have health insurance, either because (1) they’re healthy, why waste money on insurance, or (2) they’re poor, but generally healthy, so they choose to spend their money elsewhere. By adding these people to the insurance pool (by requiring everyone to have insurance), costs will go down, they say, since they will still pay premiums but incur less than the average insured person. Of course, I have no idea how many of these people there are.

    The second claim is that preventative treatments are cheaper than emergency care. In many cases, this is true (e.g. treating a wound when it happens, rather than when gangrene sets in), although not always. There’s also the fact that emergency care for the indigent currently happens in emergency rooms, which are insanely more expensive than a trip to the doctor. The proposed reforms would shift the poor and insurance-less away from using the former, towards the latter. This will save costs. But I don’t have data on whether this will save money, in aggregate.

    And then, sure, cutting costs, reforming Medicare, blah blah blah.

    But then, I get the impression that, of the folks here, maybe only Veith is interested in these arguments, and he has likely heard them. But hey, I’m sticking to the original post!

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    tODD, it actually turns out that preventative care initiatives don’t save much money. The opposite is closer to the truth, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/13/AR2009081302898.html

    The CBO is one of the greatest sources for showing that Mr. Obama is rapidly establishing a record for duplicity that makes Mr. Clinton’s pale in comparison.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    tODD, it actually turns out that preventative care initiatives don’t save much money. The opposite is closer to the truth, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/13/AR2009081302898.html

    The CBO is one of the greatest sources for showing that Mr. Obama is rapidly establishing a record for duplicity that makes Mr. Clinton’s pale in comparison.

  • Efrem

    When I read about the “health exchanges,” it reminded me of the botched “power exchange” concept when California tried to deregulate its electrical market in 1995. In acutally, it imposed so many new regualtions that the resulting chaos almost sent PG&E under and raised rates for those in the Golden State.

    Obama’s plan to cut waste to pay for this stuff should have had a laugh track attached to it since the speech was aired in prime time.

  • Efrem

    When I read about the “health exchanges,” it reminded me of the botched “power exchange” concept when California tried to deregulate its electrical market in 1995. In acutally, it imposed so many new regualtions that the resulting chaos almost sent PG&E under and raised rates for those in the Golden State.

    Obama’s plan to cut waste to pay for this stuff should have had a laugh track attached to it since the speech was aired in prime time.

  • http://www.benbartlett.blogspot.com Ben

    Todd makes the correct points, I think, though in truth they are clearly hypothetical guesses (though educated ones) by the Democrats.

    It’s a pretty simple question: Are the uninsured, on the whole, healthier and younger than the general population or sicker and older? If the first is true, then requiring that everyone be insured will help shift the market downward and if the second is true it will shift it upward.

    Bubba, the CBO numbers can be helpful, but having worked in both health insurance and in Congress I know that those numbers are largely based on known numbers, but they can’t accurately predict market shifts. Further, preventative care initiatives may struggle at times, but it is a simple fact that poor people without health insurance using the emergency room is a massive, massive cost to hospitals and drives their costs (and, in turn, the cost of insurance) way up.

    That said, there’s a lot of uncertainty out there. The President’s proposals aren’t totally unreasonable. But there is definitely a lot of hopeful thinking involved.

  • http://www.benbartlett.blogspot.com Ben

    Todd makes the correct points, I think, though in truth they are clearly hypothetical guesses (though educated ones) by the Democrats.

    It’s a pretty simple question: Are the uninsured, on the whole, healthier and younger than the general population or sicker and older? If the first is true, then requiring that everyone be insured will help shift the market downward and if the second is true it will shift it upward.

    Bubba, the CBO numbers can be helpful, but having worked in both health insurance and in Congress I know that those numbers are largely based on known numbers, but they can’t accurately predict market shifts. Further, preventative care initiatives may struggle at times, but it is a simple fact that poor people without health insurance using the emergency room is a massive, massive cost to hospitals and drives their costs (and, in turn, the cost of insurance) way up.

    That said, there’s a lot of uncertainty out there. The President’s proposals aren’t totally unreasonable. But there is definitely a lot of hopeful thinking involved.

  • http://mesamike.org Mike Westfall

    You all are thinking too much! Ichabod Obama is not pleased.

    This should be your meditation (feel it in your heart, man!): “No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick.”

  • http://mesamike.org Mike Westfall

    You all are thinking too much! Ichabod Obama is not pleased.

    This should be your meditation (feel it in your heart, man!): “No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick.”

  • Peter Leavitt

    I see Todd. While Obamacare is admittedly a dubious proposition, an even more dubious proposition is dealing with the ignorant hoi polloi on this blog who are at best partly redeemed by the virtue of Gene Veith. It’s great to have at least someone on this blog who is enlightened.

  • Peter Leavitt

    I see Todd. While Obamacare is admittedly a dubious proposition, an even more dubious proposition is dealing with the ignorant hoi polloi on this blog who are at best partly redeemed by the virtue of Gene Veith. It’s great to have at least someone on this blog who is enlightened.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Interesting commentary, Talking Cure, Again
    Obama has spoken, and neither the government-heavy
    substance nor the dishonest and demagogic tactics have changed.
    by the Nro editors including:

    Neither the government-heavy substance nor the dishonest and demagogic tactics have changed. The president denounced “scare tactics” — in a speech that warned that failure to go along with his plans would cause people to die. He pretended that preventive care will “save money,” even though this claim has been authoritatively and repeatedly debunked. He claimed, in defiance of every independent assessment, that the legislation before Congress will reduce costs. He denied that the legislation he supports will spend federal dollars on abortion, which can be true only if he has some private and novel definition of “federal dollars.” He denied that it will cover illegal immigrants, even though Democratic congressmen have specifically voted not to require verification of legal residence.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Interesting commentary, Talking Cure, Again
    Obama has spoken, and neither the government-heavy
    substance nor the dishonest and demagogic tactics have changed.
    by the Nro editors including:

    Neither the government-heavy substance nor the dishonest and demagogic tactics have changed. The president denounced “scare tactics” — in a speech that warned that failure to go along with his plans would cause people to die. He pretended that preventive care will “save money,” even though this claim has been authoritatively and repeatedly debunked. He claimed, in defiance of every independent assessment, that the legislation before Congress will reduce costs. He denied that the legislation he supports will spend federal dollars on abortion, which can be true only if he has some private and novel definition of “federal dollars.” He denied that it will cover illegal immigrants, even though Democratic congressmen have specifically voted not to require verification of legal residence.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@21), please. When people on this blog are predicting, a mere eight months into this administration — not even a quarter of the way through his term! — that Obama “will go down in history as a marvelous campaigner and speaker with little serious experience and less accomplishment”, they show that everything is a foregone (negative) conclusion when it comes to Obama.

    I didn’t expect charity or the benefit of a doubt to be extended to Obama on this (or, really, any other matter), and I haven’t been disappointed by the comments so far. For some people, the problem with Obama is that he’s Obama. End of analysis.

    But please, feel free to prove me wrong. You have yet to do so.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@21), please. When people on this blog are predicting, a mere eight months into this administration — not even a quarter of the way through his term! — that Obama “will go down in history as a marvelous campaigner and speaker with little serious experience and less accomplishment”, they show that everything is a foregone (negative) conclusion when it comes to Obama.

    I didn’t expect charity or the benefit of a doubt to be extended to Obama on this (or, really, any other matter), and I haven’t been disappointed by the comments so far. For some people, the problem with Obama is that he’s Obama. End of analysis.

    But please, feel free to prove me wrong. You have yet to do so.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Well, there is perhaps hope for a miracle. Otherwise, yes, our lightweight pres. bids fair to prove Carter a statesman.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Well, there is perhaps hope for a miracle. Otherwise, yes, our lightweight pres. bids fair to prove Carter a statesman.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    Ben, agreed that the CBO can’t predict exactly how things will shift. However, we can remember that Medicare is about 10x over predicted budget and infer what would happen with a government option.

    And it ain’t pretty.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    Ben, agreed that the CBO can’t predict exactly how things will shift. However, we can remember that Medicare is about 10x over predicted budget and infer what would happen with a government option.

    And it ain’t pretty.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X