home

Obama Press Conference

I have been quite critical of President Obama, but I listened to much of his press conference today and I liked his performance very much (Partial transcript here.) Of what I heard, there was almost nothing he said nor in the way he said it that I can find fault with. I've always said that what President Obama has said is almost exactly in line with my own views.

More . . .

Of course saying and doing are different things, but saying is a part of doing in politics. He spoke strongly on the public option for health care, in a measured but principled way on Iran. He even acknowledged the shortcomings in his stimulus plan enacted in February.

In short, he spoke like a President I fully support. Now to put those words into actions.

UPDATE - my favorite part of the press conference -

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Two of the key players in the insurance industry, America’s Health Insurance Plans and Blue Cross/Blue Shield, sent a letter to the Senate this morning saying that a government health insurance plan would, quote, "dismantle," end quote, private insurers. Why are they wrong?

And, secondly, this public plan, is this non-negotiable? Would you sign a health care bill without it?

MR. OBAMA: Well, let’s — let’s talk first of all about health care reform more broadly. I think in this debate there’s been some notion that if we just stand pat, we’re OK. And that’s just not true.

You know, there are polls out that show that 70 percent or 80 percent of Americans are satisfied with the health insurance that they currently have. The only problem is that premiums have been doubling every nine years, going up three times faster than wages. The U.S. government is not going to be able to afford Medicare and Medicaid on its current trajectory. Businesses are having to make very tough decisions about whether we drop coverage or we further restrict coverage.

So the notion that somehow we can just keep on doing what we’re doing, and that’s OK, that’s just not true. We have a long-standing critical problem in our health care system that is pulling down our economy. It’s burdening families. It’s burdening businesses. And it is the primary driver of our federal deficits. All right?

So — so if we start from the premise that the status quo is unacceptable, then that means we’re going to have to bring about some serious changes. What I’ve said is our top priority has to be to control costs. And that means not just tinkering around the edges. It doesn’t mean just lopping of reimbursements for doctors in any given year because we’re trying to fix our budget.

It means that we look at the kinds of incentives that exist, what our delivery system is like, why it is that some communities are spending 30 percent less than other communities, but getting better health care outcomes, and figuring out how can we make sure that everybody is benefiting from lower costs and better quality by improving practices. It means health I.T. It means prevention.

So all of these things are the starting point, I think, for reform. And I’ve said very clearly, if any bill arrives from Congress that is not controlling costs, that’s not a bill I can support. It’s going to have to control costs. It’s going to have to be paid for. All right?

So there’s been a lot of talk about, well, a trillion-dollar price tag. What I’ve said is, if we’re going to spend that much money, then it’s going to be largely funded through reallocating dollars that are already in the health care system, but aren’t being spent well.

If we’re spending $177 billion over 10 years to subsidize insurance companies under Medicare Advantage, when there’s no showing that people are healthier using that program than the regular Medicare program, well, that’s not a good deal for taxpayers.

And we’re going to take that money and we’re going to use it to provide better care at a cheaper cost to the American people. So, that’s point number one.

Number two, while we are in the process of dealing with the cost issue, I think it’s also wise policy and the right thing to do to start providing coverage for people who don’t have health insurance or are underinsured, are paying a lot of money for high deductibles.

I get letters, two, three letters a day that I read, of families who don’t have health insurance, are going bankrupt, are on the brink of losing their insurance, have deductibles that are so high that, even with insurance, they end up with $50,000, $100,000 worth of debt, are at risk of losing their homes.

And that has to be part of reform, making sure that, even if you’ve got health insurance now, you are not worried that, when you lose your job or your employer decides to change policies, that somehow you’re going to be out of luck.

I think about the woman who was in Wisconsin that I was with, who introduced me up in Green Bay, 36 years old, double mastectomy; breast cancer has now moved to her bones. And she’s got two little kids, a husband with a job. They had health insurance, but they’re still $50,000 in debt.

And she’s thinking, my main legacy, if I don’t survive this thing, is going to be leaving $100,000 worth of debt.

So, those are the things that I’m prioritizing.

Now, the public plan, I think, is an important tool to discipline insurance companies. What we’ve said is, under our proposal, let’s have a system, the same way that federal employees do, same way that members of Congress do, where we call it an exchange, but you can call it a marketplace, where, essentially, you’ve got a whole bunch of different plans.

If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won’t have to do a thing. You keep your plan; you keep your doctor. If your employer’s providing you good health insurance, terrific. We’re not going to mess with it.

But, if you’re a small-business person; if the insurance that’s being offered is something you can’t afford; if you want to shop for a better price, then you can go to this exchange, this marketplace, and you can — look, OK, this is how much this plan costs; this is how much that plan costs; this is what the coverage is like; this is what fits for my family.

As one of those options, for us to be able to say, here’s a public option that’s not profit-driven, that can keep down administrative costs, and that provides you good, quality care for a reasonable price as one of the options for you to choose, I think that makes sense.

QUESTION: Wouldn’t that drive private insurance out of business?

MR. OBAMA: Why would it drive private insurance out of business? If — if private — if private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care; if they tell us that they’re offering a good deal, then why is it that the government, which they say can’t run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That’s not logical.

Now, the — I think that there’s going to be some healthy debates in Congress about the shape that this takes. I think there can be some legitimate concerns on the part of private insurers that if any public plan is simply being subsidized by taxpayers endlessly that over time they can’t compete with the government just printing money, so there are going to be some I think legitimate debates to be had about how this private plan takes shape.

But just conceptually, the notion that all these insurance companies who say they’re giving consumers the best possible deal, if they can’t compete against a public plan as one option, with consumers making the decision what’s the best deal, that defies logic, which is why I think you’ve seen in the polling data overwhelming support for a public plan.

Speaking for me only

< Cheney and Kadamus: When Should Hunting Accidents Be Prosecuted As Crimes? | Wrong Under Bush, Wrong Under Obama >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Clear skies (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:03:16 PM EST
    Healthy Forests

    Health Care Reform.

    You can say anything.  Talk is cheap.

    Well, that (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by JThomas on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:06:54 PM EST
    is what is usually done at press conferences,right? I suppose he could leap off the stage and grab Major Garrett by the throat and throttle him...but I am sure he would get criticized on here for showboating then.

    The President did a very solid job of skewering the ''insurers will not be able to compete'' stupid right wing talking point today. Bravo.

    Parent

    I thought he was terrific (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:08:27 PM EST
    in the news conference today.

    I really do.

    Parent

    He can probably win all the arguments... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:11:51 PM EST
    ... to my intellectual satisfaction but can he win the spin?   That's a question for the Gibson's and Sawyer's of the world--unfortunately.

    Parent
    I thought he was very effective today (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:13:00 PM EST
    he is always effective (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 03:23:25 PM EST
    I just wish he would have said he would veto a plan that didnt have a public option.

    Parent
    Always effective at ... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 04:15:13 PM EST
    speaking.

    Doing?

    Not so much.

    Parent

    that too (none / 0) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 05:14:14 PM EST
    I also thought that was a good answer (none / 0) (#10)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:14:17 PM EST
    ahem, skewer.

    Did he ever answer whether he would sign a bill without a PO? I was too hungry to listen to the whole thing and headed into the kitchen :)

    Parent

    He is not drawing lines in the sand (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:22:03 PM EST
    OFFICIALLY but his language is such that he has painted himself into a corner it seems to me.

    I thought it was extremely effective.

     

    Parent

    Unless he decides that any bill sent to his desk (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:22:37 PM EST
    is a victory.

    Parent
    I do not think he can decide that (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:23:42 PM EST
    now. The language is quite strong now I think.

    Of course, pols are pols, but he is really firming up his ground imo.

    Parent

    Let's see what L. B. Schumer can come up with (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:25:50 PM EST
    Obama will call this shot now (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:30:47 PM EST
    imo.

    Parent
    Has he ever waffled (none / 0) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:54:41 PM EST
    on the public option for health care since he got to the WH?  I don't think so.  We'll see what happens, obviously, but I've heard him over the last few months repeatedly speak forcefully and unequivocally about the public option the same way he did today.  This is one policy area I'm inclined to think he'll go to the mat on because he realizes the whole thing is just pointless if it isn't in there.

    He certainly doesn't want to go down in history as the second person after HRC who tried and failed to get health care reform.  OTOH, imagine his mental image of being the guy who got real health care reform done when the Clintons failed.

    Parent

    Operatives have (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:55:27 PM EST
    He has now (none / 0) (#126)
    by Romberry on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 02:34:05 PM EST
    See TPM for the story.

    Parent
    But language can be an effective screen. (none / 0) (#93)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 03:26:53 PM EST
    As we saw with 'transparency' and 'civil rights' for example.

    I do not really know what 'public option' means anymore - but from what I've heard so far, it is not really a fundamental game-changer to the status quo. (The status quo being the screwing of working people by insurance companies, that is.)

    Parent

    Get screwed by the insurance company.... (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 03:35:23 PM EST
    or get screwed by the state...I fear its 6 in one, half dozen in the other...but only the insurance company has proven themselves so far, I guess we can give the state a shot.

    Though you can stop paying the insurance company when they screw ya...for wage earners, the state is not paid, the state helps itself to a chunk of your wages.  Something to think about at least.

    That being said...as long as no one is turned away from the emergency room because they don't have a stupid card, be it insurance co. or government issue...and no new laws against risk-taking behavior, I'm cool with whatever.

    Parent

    Under single payer (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Lacey on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 05:23:00 PM EST
    It's actually cheaper for most people. Two reasons, administrative costs are far less because there is only one type of paper work. And, government actually has more of an incentive to prevent illness instead of allowing illness to occur. In market-based systems, getting sick means getting money. In single payer systems, getting sick means higher taxes.


    Parent
    And, is there a good example of (none / 0) (#106)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 06:38:19 PM EST
    a working single-payer system?  All I have heard about single payer is how awful the wait times are in Canada (and how both Obama and Hillary said single payer would be the ideal plan but it is politically impossible in the U.S.)

    ....I assume there is another side to the story....

    Parent

    I have too many friends from Canada (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by shoephone on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 07:23:53 PM EST
    who call b.s. on the mythmaking about wait times. In fact, two friends moved back to Canada after living here for twelve years, and health care was the number one reason. They aren't intersted in ever coming back. So, IMO, the capatalistic naysayers aren't even worth listening to. Single payer works. As for it being politically impossible in the U.S... well, yeah, as long as the politicians are going to keep  quivering in their boots at the thought of losing campaign contributions from big insurance and big pharma.

    Parent
    Me, too! (none / 0) (#110)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 07:52:50 PM EST
    And, I've lived in Australia. These systems are very efficient considering the number of people they serve.

    The root problem here seems to keep going back to political contributions. Imagine how many treatments could have been provided last year on the campaign contributions made. Perhaps before we get UHC, we need serious action in campaign reform. Some industries should simply not be allowed to lobby, or contribute to polical candidates. Anyone ever find out how much the IRS contributed to Obama's campaign? Probably not.

    The health insurance industry, mortgage industry, and banking industry need to be gov't regulated heavily and forbidden to lobby or contribute to campaigns until this economy and problems they have created are ironed out.


    Parent

    Similar story here (none / 0) (#116)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 09:44:11 PM EST
    I have a friend that lives in Sarnia, Ontario and worked at Harper University Hospital at Wayne State University in Detroit. It's not hard for me to forget how she compared the two health care systems she was very familiar with.

    She said she had the best of both worlds. Her children are cared for in the Canadian health care system, and she gets paid in the American health care system. That sold me.

    Parent

    The few Canadians I know... (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 06:43:30 AM EST
    like their system too...but they are all young and healthy. I heard something on the news about higher death rates from cancer in Canada, and they are blaming the wait times for chemo.

    But its so hard to know who and what to believe...everybody has an agenda.

    Parent

    Wait times aren't that bad (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Lacey on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 07:24:47 AM EST
    In Canada. There was an issue with wait times in 90s, but that was because a very conservative-minded government choose to ignore funding for health care and, in fact, starve the system in the hope Canadians would say do away with it. That didn't happen and today wait times are not a problem. I say look at results. Every study I have ever seen says that Americans receive inferior care for more money compared to places with some sort of government involvement.

    Parent
    Get a hold of a copy of Sicko... (none / 0) (#127)
    by Romberry on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 02:47:58 PM EST
    ...which is the Michael Moore documentary and see how things are done in Canada, France and England. Don't believe the scare stories that opponents of single payer throw out there. It's all FUD. Besides, we have plenty of wait time right here in the US of A, not to mention care that is denied, policies that are rescinded, and a huge number of people who don't worry about "wait times" because they are uninsured and so scared of the huge costs that they don't go to the doctor at all until it is literally too late.

    Parent
    Yes and no. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:09:16 PM EST
    Obama will probably be able to command $200,000 speaking fees once he's out of politics.  I say, his talk is very dear. Il est tres cher.

    Parent
    Let's be clear what Obama has succinctly stated: (none / 0) (#99)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 03:54:47 PM EST
    1.  Costs need to come down;
    2.  Public option not necessary;
    3.  Congress will determine outcome.
    I am very impressed with President Obamas's oratory.  I am hopeful with the agenda upon which he was elected.  Now, I seek the leadership the presidency conveys to enact each of the three items outlined above.  Otherwise, "Just Words...."

    Parent
    As you said (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:08:11 PM EST
    about President Obama, I can say about what you said; "there's nothing I disagree with."

    But, the operative sentence is, "Of course saying and doing are different things."

    And in his short history, it is still to be proven he knows the difference.

    Let's hope.....


    I'm with you (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:27:54 PM EST
    Most people will acknowledge that Obama can very skillfully "Talk the talk." To date, I've not seen much evidence that he is willing to put much action behind the words.

    Personally, I would very much like to be proven wrong especially as regards to REAL health care reform. If his skillful use of words actually leads to action that produces meaningful health care reform, my lack of trust in what he says will drop quite a bit.

    OTOH if what we actually get is a welfare program for the insurance companies that is worse than no legislation at all, I will find it even harder to believe anything he says.

    As far as I'm concerned there is no reason that we cannot get REAL health care reform with the proper leadership combined with the political will to make it happen.

    Parent

    Keepo up the pressure and (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:30:19 PM EST
    skepticism. It is essential.

    that said, he was excellent today on the issue imo.

    Parent

    I understand (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:12:33 PM EST
    and appreciate the cynicism in some of the comments in this thread. I feel some of it myself.

    In a way, I say keep it up. Keep up the pressure. Make the President show you.

    But I wanted to report to you what I thought of the press conference today.

    Keeping up the pressure (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 03:25:43 PM EST
    Making one's voice heard....That is what drives policy....

    Remaining silent is translated as not caring...

    There is a difference between keeping up the pressure and finding fault with everything....

    Parent

    My thought is that some of us are (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 04:04:09 PM EST
    so consistently disappointed in the actions not matching the promises that for the cynicism to change to optimism we will need more than a couple of hours post-speech to rally round. In the case of health care, it'll take a decent plan signed into reality.

    Parent
    Amen to this (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 05:26:05 PM EST
    In the case of health care, it'll take a decent plan signed into reality.

    To change cynicism to optimism.


    Parent

    I thought it was fine (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:16:52 PM EST
    I don't disagree really at all with how he's handling Iran. I don't know what I would do differently. I also liked the way he talked about health care.

    Areas where I would disagree with him were not broached. . .

    Excellent press conference (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:26:26 PM EST
    coming around on some issues that he's been too silent about, excellent discourse on Iran, and my favorite was his handling of the smoking question :)  As an ex-smoker I found him sincere, proactive...and I worry about my kids too because smoking is total hell on your respiratory system BTD :)

    Did you know I smoke? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:28:45 PM EST
    I don't recall mentioning it?

    Trying to quit too, like Obama.

    Parent

    IIRC you made a comment that went (none / 0) (#95)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 03:34:18 PM EST
    something like this:

    I do not smoke when I am with my children.

    It was in a thread about raising the sin tax on cigarettes.

    Parent

    Certainly this is true (none / 0) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 03:44:49 PM EST
    I do not smoke around my children.

    Parent
    I think you've mentioned that you (none / 0) (#119)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 10:36:28 PM EST
    smoked a long time ago.  It is something that exsmokers remember reading.  Exsmokers can be pretty extremist about smoking once we've gotten beyond coughing up the lung butter :)

    Parent
    My only quibble (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:35:18 PM EST
    with the passage on health care you highlighted is that I always wish he would answer the specific detailed question first, then give the broad picture. He tends to give a long answer ont he borad picture first, when I really want to hear him anser the quesiton, especially one like that 'why are they wrong?' . Seems like a short pointed answer to that, and then expanding into the broader picture would be more effective in a Q&A session. For me anyway

    Other than that I thought it was a very good job, especially on Iran, and slapping down Chuck Todd, who wanted him to commit to some response to Iran. Ridiculous.

    I find it very hard to follow Obama (none / 0) (#41)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:37:01 PM EST
    because he doesn't make points, he makes paragraphs. He's easier to read.

    Parent
    I really don't mind the long answer (none / 0) (#61)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:58:27 PM EST
    I think he gives a lot of good information, and it is just a pleasure to hear a very imtelligent person explain things. I just think a more direct beginning to the answer would be better. When he opens with 'let me put it in a broader perspective' I settle in and prepare to have the question not really answered for a while. It is fater to read it than hear it, so reading the transcript I don't have the same feeling of frustration.

    Parent
    I think the longer answer (none / 0) (#66)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:03:26 PM EST
    works for those on the right who haven't always stopped to fully considered what some of the mouth pieces are saying is actually true or even makes sense. They've been hearing it for so long it becomes a condition.

    Parent
    We lost the ability to listen after Bush. nt (none / 0) (#68)
    by lilybart on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:10:16 PM EST
    Speak for yourself (none / 0) (#71)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:13:04 PM EST
    Perhaps (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:38:35 PM EST
    But that reminds me of the old West Wing episode when Bartlet debates Richey and the whole 10 word answer thing.

    Parent
    I admit I had to google it (none / 0) (#65)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:03:20 PM EST
    rang a bell, but I could not remember how it went. Very good stuff! And I agree in general. I just want the first 10 words of the answer to be a little more to the point. I don't mind if there are 200 to follow.

    It is a small nit!

    Parent

    I agree with Ezra: (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:44:30 PM EST
    There were two ways he could have responded to the press corps' queries. The first would be a procedural reply: "All ideas are on the table," or something of that nature. But that wasn't his approach. Instead, he defended the plan's substantive merits. His answer was, in other words, an effort at persuasion rather than diversion. The implication was that he, at the least, is genuinely convinced by the case for a public insurer


    Very well put (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:52:55 PM EST
    I liked what he said about Iran.... (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:51:32 PM EST
    overall, one of those rare moments where I see a stark difference from Republicans.  Though I still don't see where we have a moral leg to stand on regarding nukes.

    And I hope the CIA ain't up to covert funny business in Iran, without the presidents knowledge, assuming he is telling the truth of course.

    He had time to prepare (none / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:00:49 PM EST
    Mark Knoller of CBS News Twittered:

    Huffington Post's Nico Pitney says the WH called him this morning and invited him to ask his Iran questions at the news conference.


    Parent
    On second thought... (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:05:40 PM EST
    I bet we do have covert goings-on in Iran (this is America, what was I thinking?)...with or without the presidents knowledge...a depressing thought.

    Still like the tone, but its probably the usual bullsh*t...Taco Bell musta slipped some kool-aid in my Mountain Dew:)

    Parent

    When I hear someone expend as much (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:23:32 PM EST
    breath as Obama did on controlling costs, and nowhere near the same effort explaining how doing so equates to improved CARE, I get worried.  He says we're going to "take that money and we're going to use it to provide better care at a cheaper cost to the American people," how does that happen, exactly?  Does it go directly to the people?  Does he force insurance companies to lower premiums?  Does he mandate or increase levels of care?  He needs to explain how these costs savings actually improve care, and I don't think he's done that.

    And while he cites the 70-80% of people who are satisfied with their insurance, I think citing the 70% who would like a public plan would have been a stronger indication of his support for one.  His talk about having an exchange like federal employees have seemed less like an argument for a public plan and more like an argument for expanding the marketplace for insurance companies.  That he envisions a public plan being on the list seems pretty meaningless.  What would a public plan cover - basic care at a minimal cost, with the option to purchase a supplemental plan from a private insurance company?  He doesn't say.

    It's starting to remind me of those frustrating conversations that go like this:

    "I'm really hungry - what do we have to eat?"

    "Well, we have turkey and ham, some leftover pasta, there's stuff for a salad, I could make burgers - what do you want?"

    "Gee, I don't know what I'm hungry for.  Is there anything else?"

    "Well, do you want a meal or a snack - do you want a sandwich, or we could get takeout?"

    "I don't know.  What are you hungry for?"

    "I'm not really that hungry - why don't you decide."

    "Oh, nevermind.  When you fix yourself something, just make enough for me and I'll eat it."

    "Okay - I think I'm going to heat up the pasta and make a salad."

    Really?  I'm not in the mood for that. Can you make me a burger?"

    "Sigh."

    "Okay - fine; I'll eat the pasta and a salad.  But don't put any cucumbers in mine."

    It's just so vague; I just do not sense any real passion for health CARE.

    this is so funny (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:30:36 PM EST
    I just had this conversation last night with polenta and braised beef....

    Parent
    How to cut costs and improve care (none / 0) (#120)
    by FreakyBeaky on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 12:05:54 AM EST
    Leaning heavily  on Atul Gawande, how much "care"  you receive basically depends on two things:

    1. How billable your insurance or Medicare is

    2. Whether your doctors are paid a salary, or are paid per treatment somehow.

    Gold-plated insurance, or sometimes Medicare, plus doctors paid per treatment equals a huge incentive to over-treat.  Why is this bad?  Because every medical treatment or procedure carries a risk, often a life-threatening one.  The more procedures, tests, whatever, the more chances for something to go wrong (which then necessitates more care).  Sometimes less is better, and it's also cheaper.    

    Bonus: cut out unneeded medicine, and you can move the beans around and pay for someone else who has the opposite problem: too little (or no) medical care.  

    Long story short, part of providing universal health care has to be getting incentives lined up with patients' needs rather than with their potential to be ATMs.  Seems like part of the problem has a clear fix - encourage (require?) that doctors be paid a salary, or at least not be paid per procedure.

    Parent

    The healthcare thing (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by lilburro on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:56:21 PM EST
    confuses me.  

    1.  I don't see how a public plan can survive without the option of it turning into single payer.  Which is what Sebelius says cannot/will not happen.  

    2.  Are we still doing mandates?  They seem necessary to make this work.

    3.  Again, seriously, why can't we just do single payer...we have Blue Cross/Blue Shield competing against the government, admin. costs are going to be duplicated, etc.  It's unnecessarily wasteful, administratively.


    I'm confused too, (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 03:33:36 PM EST
    in exactly the way that you describe.

    Why can't we get REAL reform? What is so freaking hard about that, given all the D's in Washington? What they seem to be talking about is not reform to me.

    Parent

    Local news this morning said that the (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 03:54:17 PM EST
    Group Health Cooperative HMO group in Washington State is being used as a model for one of the options.

    It's a very good HMO, has been around for well over 40 years, and does really well financially. In the Seattle area, they recently put in a huge new medical building and are subcontracting a private hospital for their inpatients. I know doctors and nurses who have worked there for years, and people who have been under their plan for decades who wouldn't switch to private.

    If that gets to the finish line, we could all be very happy with the health care plan. As long as EVERYone is included and the price is right, of course.


    Parent

    Well, I'm not convinced that's right (none / 0) (#84)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:58:39 PM EST
    The USPS has a number of competitors, after all.

    Parent
    Postal Service (none / 0) (#89)
    by lilburro on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 03:22:52 PM EST
    doesn't seem like a great comparison...after all they have a 6 billion budget deficit and are raising stamp prices all the time.

    Seems to me that the public plan will need a lot of people in it for it not to cause a huge battle over taxes.  For many reasons.  I don't know, sorry if it sounds like I'm reinventing the wheel!  This has been discussed 1000x times.

    Parent

    I loved his comment on the illogic of (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 07:12:06 PM EST
    those on the right that claim the market provides the best care and is the most efficienct but then can't compete a government program.  Well if the private sector can provide the best care and the cheapest prices what does it have to fear?  This is the first time I have heard a major politician voice this point.  I would love to see this point be  the first thing that comes out of the pundits mouths.  It counters the cost arguement against a public plan without having to get bogged down in huge numbers that people don't understand.

    Interesting funding principle (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by DeanOR on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 07:22:51 PM EST
    "...it's going to be largely funded through reallocating dollars that are already in the health care system, but aren't being spent well."

    We have to fund health care from money already in the system, unlike perpetual war, which we fund with one supplemental after another, or the bank bailouts or tax cuts for the wealthy that we don't fund at all.

    I'm certain that ... (2.00 / 0) (#43)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:37:42 PM EST
    it isn't "patently false" that the US has operatives in Iran egging the demonstrations on.

    The rest is just repackaged cold war rhetoric.  Yawn.

    The Healthcare talk was completely opaque.  All subjunctive maundering.

    The rest just seemed pretty boilerplate Prez press conference vaudeville.

    He's a fine actor.  But we all knew that.

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:39:01 PM EST
    Yup ... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:25:24 PM EST
    I am aware of this.

    Parent
    I hope we have operatives in Iran (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:39:42 PM EST
    and I hope they aren't wasting their time organizing street protests. I'm certain those are organic.

    Parent
    It's one of the major things ... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:24:19 PM EST
    our operatives do. Various low level forms of destabilization, agent provocateurs and the like.

    I'm not suggesting they created the protests.  But to suggest the US didn't help goes against how the intelligence structure has worked in this country for that last 60+ years.

    It strains credulity well past the breaking point.

    Parent

    If we have operatives (none / 0) (#86)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 03:06:41 PM EST
    in Iran, there are too few of them; at least this is what all the pols and pundits have been saying for the last week.  And the current crackdown by the Iranian government on outsiders will make it all the more difficult for us to have operatives there.  This is an instance in which making nice with other countries -- rather than alienating them with the rhetoric of testosterone is the better way to promote homeland security.

    Parent
    Obama Presser (2.00 / 0) (#111)
    by JLFuller on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 07:55:04 PM EST
    We hear the comment from the right that Obama is disingenuous. I don't think so. The look on his face during the presser today seems to say that this job may be a lot more than he expected. It is one thing to sit around a table drinking beer and eating munchies while discussing the urgent problems of the world and quite another to actually be responsible to fix them. This job is too big for Obama and his team have not make it easier. The flubs just keep on coming. It appears reality has set in and Barack Obama may not up to the task or at the least he is not comfortable with it. Whatever it is, the look on his face today tells me he is feeling squeezed. I just hope we don't the man melt down some afternoon in front of millions of people.

    What an absurd comment (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 01:16:45 AM EST
    All presidents feel squeezed.  It's why they age 20 years in office.  Obama feels less squeezed than most.  He's irritated with the foolishness of the press corps and morons like John McCain.  He's had fewer "flubs" than Clinton by miles.  Personally, I'd be happier if he were less sure of himself.

    Parent
    all you needed to hear... (2.00 / 0) (#124)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 07:56:41 AM EST
    ...was Obama's lame answer to the smoking question posed to him.  His lack of candor, his obvious fear of disappointing people by just saying "yes, i still smoke sometimes" is, sorry, the answer of a man who is just not capable taking on things in an honest manner.  he is, it seems quite obvious, not even capable of being honset with himself, so he never will be with us.  it is the little things like this that reveal far more about who he really is, why he acts as he does, than any speech ever will.  

    Sorry (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:09:12 PM EST
    the video is not working.

    I will search to see if I can find one that does.

    it's good that you did this mea culpa (none / 0) (#11)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:15:12 PM EST
    before a troll or two said the speech sucked. " a'ha, busted! " you'd have been able to say: "this link didn't work!"

    Parent
    Seems like he WORM'd again (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:18:11 PM EST
    At least according to Jake Tapper (and if his reporting is accurate, he's right):

    "No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people," President Obama told the American Medical Association on June 15. "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."

    But today the president clarified that promise. It seems he wasn't saying "no one" will take away any American's health insurance - he was saying the government wouldn't.

    Which is not to say that the government wouldn't create a situation where such a thing would happen.

    ABC News asked how the president could make such a guarantee if the public run plan were cheaper, thus possibly enticing employers to enroll employees in that plan.

    "When I say if you have your plan and you like it,...or you have a doctor and you like your doctor, that you don't have to change plans, what I'm saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform," the President said.

    The president went on to say that, "Now, are there going to be employers right now, assuming we don't do anything -- let's say that we take the advice of some folks who are out there and say, `Oh, this is not the time to do health care.  We can't afford it.  It's too complicated.  Let's take our time,' et cetera. So let's assume that nothing happened.  I can guarantee you that there's the possibility for a whole lot of Americans out there that they're not going to end up having the same health care they have. Because what's going to happen is, as costs keep on going up, employers are going to start making decisions.  We've got to raise premiums on our employees.  In some cases, we can't provide health insurance at all. And so there are going to be a whole set of changes out there. That's exactly why health reform is so important."

    Pressed on the question of whether a public plan is non-negotiable, that he won't sign a health care reform bill that does not include it, the president said that it was not, at least not yet.

    "We have not drawn lines in the sand, other than that reform has to control costs and that it has to provide relief to people who don't have health insurance or are under-insured," the president said. "You know, those are the broad parameters that we've discussed. There are a whole host of other issues where ultimately I may have a strong opinion, and I will express those to members of Congress as this is shaping up.  It's too early to say that.  Right now, I will say that our position is that a public plan makes sense."



    Jake Tapper proves again (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:20:57 PM EST
    he is rather stupid.

    How on Earth can the government guarantee that an employer will not alter helath plans offered to its employees?

    I remember that question and it struck me as I heard it how stupid Tapper really is.

    Parent

    That's exactly what I was going to say (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:22:03 PM EST
    How can the President guarantee what a private company would do?

    Sounds to me like a good argument FOR the public plan.

    Parent

    It is indeed (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:22:58 PM EST
    aqnd once you get the full trnascriupt you will see how Obama used Tapper's question PRECISELY to make that argument.

    Parent
    I like the way Obama handles stupid (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:29:52 PM EST
    questions like that - the one about his smoking wa another one - he calls them out as rather stupid and then says what he wants to say.

    Tapper always thinks he has some kind of 'gotcha'. Who in their right mind thought Obama was promising that he would stop employers from changing health care plans?

    Parent

    That question struck me as stupid, also. (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:31:20 PM EST
    Jake Tapper is the first person I have ever heard who thought that whole "keep your plan, keep your doctor" pledge meant that employers would no longer be allowed to change health insurance plans for their employees. Absolutely ridiculous. Yes, folks, your elite White House press corps at work.

    As Obama pointed out, employers change plans, raise employee premiums and sometimes do away with health insurance all together because our current system is insanely expensive and getting more costly every day.

    Parent

    Then I guess the next question is (none / 0) (#24)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:26:44 PM EST
    Why did Obama say it in the first place?

    "No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people," President Obama told the American Medical Association on June 15. "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."


    Parent
    He was speaking about the government (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:29:30 PM EST
    The GOP Scare is that the "government will take away your health care."

    tapper's question was stupid.

    Parent

    get ready for the steady iron hard jet of (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:34:09 PM EST
    nonesense from the Broderella's and various pearl clutching Dames of the esteemed press.

    Parent
    That will be Obama's test (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:37:03 PM EST
    Can he ignore the stupidity of the Broders and Brookses of the world.

    see my previous post on the subject.

    I thought he did a lot of what Digby and I would like to see today.

    It really was a very good performance imo.

    Parent

    It was "heads I win, tails you lose" (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:36:04 PM EST
    because if the answer had been otherwise, Broder and friends would have gasped at the notion of telling private companies what to do.

    Parent
    OMG, I hope this does not become (none / 0) (#69)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:10:32 PM EST
    the fake issue of the week to distract from any real discussion of health care. But I suppose it is inevitable. Tapper usually has his eye firmly on the shiny objects. To channel Somerby, could our discourse get any dumber?

    Parent
    Welp, so far it's (none / 0) (#105)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 05:37:41 PM EST
    "softening on the public option" and still playing dumb about the not taking away employer supplied insurance via Charlie and Jake on the nightly news . . .

    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:15:43 PM EST
    you give him too much credit. As you say, he's a pol, and when cornered with an inconvenient quote, he just makes sh!t up (see the Greatest Speech on Race).

    And since we know that at least some reporters were invited to ask certain questions, I'll reserve judgment on the greatness of his appearance until he actually quits yapping about stuff and actually does something.

    Parent

    That would be reasonable (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 03:08:54 PM EST
    if you know anyone other than Jake "I'm a moron" Tapper thought Obama could have meant that the Government was going to control the options offered by employers.

    Parent
    I'm not prone to giving him too much credit (none / 0) (#76)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:29:36 PM EST
    but I'm with him on this one. He was not cornered with an inconvenient quote in this case. He was confronted by a reporter who was perhaps deliberately misunderstanding what he was saying.

    I don't know what is more chritable to Tapper -thinking he is really that dumb or thinking he was trying to drum up a fake controversy.

    Parent

    I don't know (none / 0) (#80)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:37:55 PM EST
    For someone who supposedly chooses his words carefully, saying something like "No one will take away your coverage", instead of, "The government will not take away your coverage," in the original statement and then having to clarify it when asked about it seems like backtracking.

    And I could care less about Tapper. Maybe it's because I don't believe Obama is very sincere or passionate about this topic, that I find him credible on the subject.

    Parent

    Give me a break (none / 0) (#81)
    by Lacey on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:42:16 PM EST
    Everyone knows what he meant. Trying to say otherwise is looking to drum up some faux outrage.

    Parent
    Which is exactly what I said (none / 0) (#82)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:55:00 PM EST
    WORM

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 08:57:42 PM EST
    Couldn't anyone do that to him or anyone else at any time - pretend not to understand him and make him say it another way? I know the WORM phenomena, and I really don't think this is it.

    All the Dems in the debates said one variation or another on 'we aren't going to make you change your doctors' and we all knew what they meant. No one then pretended to think they meant that they were going to prevent employers from changing plans.

    Parent

    The Obama Show (none / 0) (#125)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 08:06:23 AM EST
    Dana Milbank thinks so too (I know, people here probably don't like him either, so what he says of no value and should be dismissed, right?)

    The use of planted questioners is a no-no at presidential news conferences, because it sends a message to the world -- Iran included -- that the American press isn't as free as advertised. But yesterday wasn't so much a news conference as it was a taping of a new daytime drama, "The Obama Show." Missed yesterday's show? Don't worry: On Wednesday, ABC News will be broadcasting "Good Morning America" from the South Lawn (guest stars: the president and first lady), "World News Tonight" from the Blue Room, and a prime-time feature with Obama from the East Room.

    "The Obama Show" was the hottest ticket in town yesterday. Forty-five minutes before the start, there were no fewer than 107 people crammed into the narrow aisles, in addition to those in the room's 42 seats. Japanese and Italian could be heard coming from the tangle of elbows, cameras and compressed bodies: "You've got to move! . . . Oh, God, don't step on my foot!" Some had come just for a glimpse of celebrity. And they wanted to know all about him. "As a former smoker, I understand the frustration and the fear that comes with quitting," McClatchy News's Margaret Talev empathized with the president before asking him how much he smokes.

    SNIP

    This is Barack Obama, and these are the Days of Our Lives.

    As if to compensate for the prepackaged Huffington Post question, Obama went quickly to Fox News for a predictably hostile question from Major Garrett. "In your opening remarks, sir, you said about Iran that you were appalled and outraged," Garrett said. "What took you so long?

    "I don't think that's accurate," Obama volleyed testily, calling his toughening statements on Iran "entirely consistent."

    The host of "The Obama Show" dispatched with similar ease a challenge from CBS's Chip Reid, asking whether his hardening line on Iran was inspired by John McCain. "What do you think?" Obama replied with a big grin. That brought the house down. And the studio audience laughed again when ABC's Jake Tapper tried to get Obama to answer another reporter's question that he had dodged. "Are you the ombudsman for the White House press corps?" the president cracked.

    The laughter had barely subsided when the host made another joke about Tapper's reference to Obama's "Spock-like language about the logic of the health-care plan."

    "The reference to Spock, is that a crack on my ears?" the president asked.

    But yesterday's daytime drama belonged primarily to Pitney, of the Huffington Post Web site. During the eight years of the Bush administration, liberal outlets such as the Huffington Post often accused the White House of planting questioners in news conferences to ask preplanned questions. But here was Obama fielding a preplanned question asked by a planted questioner -- from the Huffington Post



    Parent
    If public option is significantly (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:59:11 PM EST
    cheaper than private insurance, delivers quality healthcare, the private insurers will feel pressured to lower their rates.  

    Parent
    Yes, if it is cheaper and (none / 0) (#88)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 03:18:52 PM EST
    and delivers quality care it will provide the "discipline" of which the president speaks.   However, just getting some "public" option in place because it has now become a presidential centerpiece may not turn out as anticipated.  We have a good operational model to consider--Medicare, which is sort of a privately contracted single payer, backed up by supplemental private insurance.  However, this does not seem to be in the cards.  Between the talk of Senator Conrad and Senator Schumer, my guess is a national co-op, with build-in disadvantages so as to level the playing field in our future.  After all, a public plan that satisfies the "ifs" above is a threatening foot in an open door that must, from the private insurer's perspective, be slammed shut.   While it may seem like heresy, I am of the opinion that a inferior public option is worse than none.  Better that we rely on strong and effective regulation of private health insurers.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#15)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:21:56 PM EST
    That answered the question I had about non-negotiable. I missed it in a fit of hunger :)

    Parent
    How did it anaswer your question? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:22:31 PM EST
    If I read it right (none / 0) (#26)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:28:30 PM EST
    he didn't commit to not signing if there wasn't a PO?

    Parent
    He formally has not drawn a line in the sand (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:32:37 PM EST
    That seems sound tactics politically.

    What he is doing is laying pout what he thinks is essential in a health care reform plan and more and more he is basically saying a public option is essential.

    I urge yo to read the entire transcript when it becomes available.

    Parent

    I'll read it :) (none / 0) (#52)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:46:43 PM EST
    I was just curious where he went on it because it was re-asked at the end of the question and then iirc they moved on to another (smoking?). I liked that he said it made good sense etc, the only nitpick I had was talking about reasonable costs. We seem to have lost the word "affordable". Of course, I'm never sure if their "affordable" and "reasonable" really are  ;)

    Parent
    True, he did not commit to anything (none / 0) (#33)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:31:02 PM EST
    regarding PO, just explained (very well, I thought) why he thought it was a good idea. I would have liked to see a commitment.

    Parent
    It came close to being (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:33:57 PM EST
    a commitment wiothout saying those words. Why? Because he said certain things are essential to a good plan.

    and he said to achieve those certain things, a public option is essential.

    Logic dictates that a public option is nonnegotiable for Obama.

    Parent

    As always, the devil will be (none / 0) (#45)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:38:43 PM EST
    in the details. Will it be a robust public plan that people can afford and that provides good health care? Will there be realistic subsidies to help people pay for it? Has Kent Conrad's coop idea finally died the death it so richly deserves?

    In other words, as is so often the case with our President, will his actions match his rhetoric?

    Parent

    Your last graf (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:40:42 PM EST
    is always the question with all pols.

    Let me put it this way, Obama spoke in a way that I believe makes it much harder for him to give up on a MEANINGFUL public option.

    Parent

    Meaning he will veto a plan without it? (none / 0) (#53)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:49:59 PM EST
    Can you really see him vetoing anything they come up with? I don't know about that. I'd sure love to see it though.

    Parent
    The Democratic congress will not (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:54:35 PM EST
    present a plan Obama is not on board with.

    They just won't.

    Parent

    True, hadn't looked at it that way (none / 0) (#70)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:12:35 PM EST
    Guess we will see soon where he draws the line. I hope you are right and this is a good tactic. He's sure tactically smarter than I.

    Parent
    The non-commitment was spun (none / 0) (#78)
    by magster on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:35:08 PM EST
    by Andrea Mitchell et al as his wavering on public option, and that the CBO eroded Obama's faith in his own proposal.

    Give traditional media an inch, and they'll just amplifly their narrative even louder.

    Parent

    I Get It (none / 0) (#39)
    by The Last Whimzy on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:35:38 PM EST
    He has explained it in such a way now, communicating his support, his belief that it is such a good idea that one would now have to conclude that his inability to enact this idea would be considered a great failure on his part.

    I'm not sure if everyone is paying attention or it would be brought up after the fact, but no president wants to be remembered as the president who failed to implement his own best ideas.


    Parent

    Not only his good idea (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:39:50 PM EST
    the idea HE SAYS is essential to fixing the system.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#51)
    by The Last Whimzy on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:45:45 PM EST
    Communicating why something is essential is sometimes more binding than a statement of commitment.

    In the end, stating a commitment is just words too.

    I do hope the primary focus now shifts from words to action, though.

    Parent

    When did a Public Option become his idea? (none / 0) (#54)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:51:10 PM EST
    Who cares? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:53:54 PM EST
    The credit does not matter. The policy matters. At the end of the day of course, the President gets the credit . . . or the blame.

     

    Parent

    Sorry, should have added a :) (none / 0) (#62)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:58:54 PM EST
    I just found a bit of humor there :)

    I'll be thrilled if he actually follows through and we get what we need and have been asking for. And as I said above, I thought he answered the BS well. Next up, more pearl clutching on the right . . .

    Parent

    The idea that saying is part of doing (none / 0) (#28)
    by The Last Whimzy on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:28:50 PM EST
    as it relates to the prior administration, it's an idea that merits further consideration.

    That there was no "mission accomplished" banner behind Obama shows that America is now going in the right direction.

    I agreed with everything Obama said.

    South America (none / 0) (#63)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:00:37 PM EST
    I liked Obama's comments about Chilean President Bachelet and Brazil's Lula. He pointed out that while we and they do not agree on everything, we respect each other and try to find areas where we can work together. He also disputed the claim, which I've seen elsewhere, that Lula is some kind of wild-eyed leftist revolutionary.

    I would not have minded a sharper dig at Bush's irresponsible destruction of the Clinton surplus. In remarking on how Chili is surviving the economic crisis in part because they saved a big part of the profits from when copper prices were high, Obama noted that the U.S. could learn from Chili.

    My take on this news conference is..... (none / 0) (#79)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:36:00 PM EST
    Obama, being the brilliant, and consummate, politician he is, finally listened to his "inner voice" which said to him, "Barry Baby, watcha doin, kid? You're running a hundred miles an hour, standing in place. The natives are getting restless, and the wishy/hopey thing is getting stale. All the big things on your plate: the economy, wars, Imperial Presidency, et al, ain't going over that great. So what you gotta do is pick out one thing; one thing where the wind is at your back, where everybody has a stake, where everyone is rooting for you, and what can make everyone forget everything else, and will secure your place in history as the "Great President who Fixed Health Care."

    So take a stand, lose the uh, uh, uh parsing, forget the professor crap, dig a moat around the issue, man the battle stations, and tell the Republicans, the wussy Democrats, the insurance companies, and the pundits, "The American people elected me President, in part because I promised them I would fix Health Care, and that's exactly what I'm going to do. Now, I'm no physicist, but I do know one thing; there's no force in Nature that can stop a President, with the American people behind him, from getting what is so greatly needed, and so rightly deserved. So, if any of you have succumbed to the silly notion that you're going to stop me, let me borrow a phrase from my predecessor, "Bring it On!"

    I think in a way, that's what he said today.


    Good lord (none / 0) (#112)
    by kmblue on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 08:39:39 PM EST
    I don't think he said anything close to what you heard or wished you heard.

    Parent
    a little wishful thinking, (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 08:59:50 PM EST
    a little poetic license

    you think?

    Parent

    On Health carre (none / 0) (#92)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 03:25:46 PM EST
    Until we see what comes out of Congress as a Health Care Plan we will not know what the President is willing or not to sign.  Words are cheap, or so they say. :)