Today’s Q for O

Reminds me of a M.A.S.H. episode where the General said, “This is a press conference. The last thing we want to do is answer questions.”

“then lots of employers will want to have their employees covered by that cheaper plan”
Random thoughts:
With the govt’s track record, the companies would probably switch back after a year of torment with the govt’s plan.
The employees will have to suffer for a year before returning to a private plan (and hopefully be able to go back to it).
Companies that carry the govt plan will have trouble hiring employees.
Only the unskilled labor companies will benefit from this plan because their employers won’t care.

Elephant being ignored in the room: Will illegal immigrants be covered under the President’s proposed HC Bill? Does anyone in the WH press corps have the nerve to ask this question???

Maybe he’d answer your question Jake if you were more like Jeff Gannon, or Nico Pitney?

Thank you for asking that question. It was refreshing to finally see someone (other than FOX News) actually ask a question that challenges his health care plan. In the Lewin Group report, which was also provided to the President and under testimony to Congress, it even states in there that employers will simply cut benefits and force employees on the public plan. And their other view, even if employers of over 50 are forced to retain private coverage for employees, is that the subsidy private plan participants would bear as the result of so many being picked up by a public plan would be too expensive to sustain and in the end insurance companies will quickly fold. Multiple other independent reports also predict the exact same outcome. Americans know this will be the result, so why does he insist on denying it will occur? And why does he insist that if we’re against a public plan, it means we’re against reform altogether? Not so – we want *private* reform for the insured, and a free-market solution for the uninsured (and one that gives the power back to the states, not the federal govt). The only reason this is unreasonable to him is because it is not the solution that the labor unions are demanding from him. Thank you for asking a legitimate question, and for trying hard to get a legitimate answer – even though he refused to give you a legitimate, honest answer.

” I can guarantee you that there’s the possibility ”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WOW! Smartest president evah!!!111!
Excellent questions, btw. It would have been nice had he answered it, as well as the one about whether or not Iranian dips. were still invited to the “cookout”. He seemed to be quite irritated today.

Good question JPT. If all of the questions were like that maybe these performances would be of value. It is good to see ABC is not totally in the Health Care tank in spite of their all day Obama love fest infomercial for health care. The obvious staging with the Huff Po guy was embarrassing. Pretty clear the President thinks us mere mortals can’t see through the BS.

I also enjoyed the part about how he is a 95% cured, former smoker. It reminded me of the time I was 95% pregnant.

Thanks for asking. I’m shocked that some people find this idea controversial.
Employers always shop for the best plans.
The cheaper plan will translate into more money for employers to churn back into capital investments, higher wages, and/or new hires.
Call your representatives in SUPPORT of the public option.
The only people who will suffer are those insurance companies that are unwilling to adapt to a truly competitive marketplace.

James Danley . .. .
I think the reason a public health plan is under discussion is because millions of americans are working in situations where they are not covered by the current system. Usually these jobs are low paying, but the individual does not qualify as ‘poor’.
We’ve all heard the stories of people bankrupted by illness or hospitalization.
I still think a lot of people are prejudging the discussion – and we do know that the health care industry has funded politicians for years, and will now expend great amounts of money to market in attempts to ensure their own profits.
Does anyone know of good comparative studies of countries with public health care systems?

“The private sector cannot complete with the federal government because the private sector is in business to make a profit. The federal government will always be able to offer more benefits for a cheaper price.”
A startling admission.
“So the public option will drive the private health insurers out of business. That will mean tens of thousands of workers losing their jobs and a huge drop in local, state and federal tax revenues.”
So the reason we should not reform health care is that insurance companies may go out of business.

Danita, I have heard reports that 85% of the American people ARE SATISIFED with their current health insurance plans. When the public option drives private health insurers out of business, then that 85% will join the other 15% in NOT BEING SATISFIED with their medical coverage. Once the federal government takes full control of our health care system, IT will become the sole decider on who receives medical care. Neither you nor your doctor will have a say…except when the decisions are within narrowly sanctioned options set by the federal government.

To those asking why the sky hasn’t fallen yet with SCHIP, Medicaid/Medicare already existing:
1) Read independent studies on the cost of private health care insurance. #1 in every study is the subsidy that private insurers pay to make up for what Medicaid & Medicare aren’t paying on those claims. Govt only pays 60% of *legitimate* charges, so providers charge priv subscribers that extra, which drives up cost.
2) Have you ever been on Medicaid or Medicare? It sucks! Forced to clinics instead of your dr, months of waiting, no one accepts the insurance, and no tests or procedures are covered. It nearly killed me. Imagine that expanded by another 35% year one, doubled in year two when we add to the public system. Not sustainable.
3) Sky hasn’t fallen yet because there aren’t that many on public health care yet. But when you move a whole portion of the country to public plan, you get #1 and #2 above. That’s why.
4) SCHIP is funded by cigarette tax. At the same time, govt is trying to get Americans to quit smoking, and has now regulated marketing, which will all drive down tobacco sales. So how will SCHIP be funded in a year, 2yrs, 5yrs?
5) Labor unions actually surpassed Pharma & Insurance in last election as biggest govt lobbyists. And before that, they weren’t far behind anyway. So who’s REALLY spending all their money on (dismantling) health care? Don’t just listen to the hype, look it up and have all the facts.
All anyone asks is that people read the non-partisan studies before accepting what sounds like a really great thing – there are reasons health care is so expensive, and govt is at the root of many of those. Understand the structure first.

Liberty_Chick . ..
Okay, I get it now. Unions are bad. Health insurance corporations are good.
Public health care means ‘no one accepts the insurance’ and ‘no tests or procedures’ are covered and that is bad.
Millions not having medical coverage is good.
And no solutions are offered.

Ryan C wrote: “So the reason we should not reform health care is that insurance companies may go out of business.”
There is nothing wrong with reforming our health care system. I object to the complete overhauling of our health care system and forming a single-payer system with the federal government as the sole provider of health care.
We have already seen the beginning steps of nationalizing our financial institutions and the auto industry. Once we allow the nationalization of our health care, where do we draw the line? Will the nationalization of the fast food industry or all eating establishments be next? How about the nationalization of sports in America?
I believe in the Free Market and Capitalism, as they empower the greatest individual freedom. Socialism stymies individual freedom.

No offense, but the military is an enormous government program…. and while conservatives do tend to let them run a little wild with their spending….
On the whole, they do a great job.

Danita wrote: “The health care reform underway is attempting to address the fact that millions have no coverage at all – primarily working in low paying jobs but not ‘poor’.”
That may be the discussion, but that is NOT the agenda. The agenda is to nationalize our health care system and make the federal government the sole provider of health care in America.
George Will recently made the comment that of the 47 million people who are uninsured, 14 million are already eligible for coverage but have not taken advantage of the existing programs; another 10 million are in households that make more than $75,000 and can afford insurance if they wanted it. So of the “47 million uninsured” that leaves 23 million people–INCLUDING the 20 million illegal immigrants–who are falling through the cracks of the system. So if you exclude the illegal immigrants, then that means THREE MILLION Americans and legal residents are falling through the cracks. Why not tweak the system to include those 3 million people? Why must we overhaul the entire system? Why must be nationalize the system?

Tapper shouldn’t have to explain the Spock comment. I understand why he did, but it’s a shame.
That was a deliberate ploy by Obama to put him on the defensive.
If he was read from teleprompter I guarantee it was also a stall so team teleprompter could map out the talking points.
All that aside, this was slick and disgusting. This wasn’t even skilled snake oil sales. I have no idea how he gets away with it.
Thank you, Mr. Tapper for exposing it.

Danita wrote: “On what authority do you state this?”
Obama’s own words (all capitals-emphasis mine) back in January 2008:
“If I were designing a system from scratch I WOULD PROBABLY SET UP A SINGLE-PAYER SYSTEM…But we’re not designing a system from scratch…And when we had a healthcare forum before I set up my healthcare plan here in Iowa there was a lot of resistance to a single-payer system. So what I believe is we should set up a series of choices…OVER TIME IT MAY BE THAT WE END UP TRANSITIONING TO SUCH A SYSTEM. For now, I just want to make sure every American is covered…I DON’T WANT TO WAIT FOR THAT PERFECT SYSTEM…The one thing you should ask about the candidates though is who’s gonna have the capacity to actually deliver on the change?…I believe I’ve got a better capacity to break the gridlock and attract both Independents and Republicans to work together.”

But IF the government cannot control costs… and the public plan is doomed to failure… The private insurance companies have nothing to fear from the competition.
You can’t have it both ways.
Out of one side of your mouth, critics of the Obama plan say that public insurance will be too inefficient. Out of the other side, it will be too efficient.
It’s gotta be one or the other. If it is inefficient, then the private plans will compete and prove their worth. If the is too efficient, and the private plans cannot compete…. then what’s the big loss?
I mean, the insurance companies will have to trim the fat, but from my perspective (where my premiums go up every year, while my coverage is actual getting worse), this seems like a win-win.

James Danley . ..
I disagree with your assessment of what you have President Obama saying.
He is clearly saying that in a perfect world a ‘single-payer system’ might work best, but he states (without question) that we must deal with the situation the way we find it on the ground and offer various choices and options.
I can see how you could stretch his words into an agenda ‘to nationalize our health care system’ but clearly that is not what he said.

“You can’t have it both ways.
Out of one side of your mouth, critics of the Obama plan say that public insurance will be too inefficient. Out of the other side, it will be too efficient.”
Nail meet head!
Well done.

Danita, so you are going to completely ignore the comment, “over time it may be that we end up transitioning to such a system?”
What about comments like those of Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA)? Here are just a couple of excerpts from his speech from July 15, 2008:
“We cannot stand idly by and watch when we know that developing and instituting an American single payer health care program can dramatically improve the health of American business and American families – literally and financially. And for the first time in decades, we have a chance if we are willing to seize the opportunity.”
“I am here to say that single payer is on the table. It is time to breach the dam of opposition and create a single payer health care program for the health and well being of the American people and American business.”
Majority of the Democrats in both houses of Congress have the same viewpoint. The question is whether they can convince the more moderate Democrats to join them. As a unified block, the Democrats can ram any legislation they want through Congress. They can even use the “nuclear option” in the Senate to block a filibuster attempt by the Republicans.

“Let’s also not do any studies on how many jobs in the insurance industry will be lost and etc.”
Yes, let’s do this study.
Then let’s calculate how much business and jobs are lost due to the obscene costs of health insurance.

James Danley:”Since the federal government will not have to include a profit margin in its cost IT will always be cheaper than the private sector. THAT is the key. ”
If the private sector is more efficient than the government – as is typically advanced by the right – their efficiency is their profit margin. If they are not more efficient than the government, then that could explain why we spend 2 to 3 times as much per person for health care compared to all other first world nations with no obvious benefits.

Our current Free Market is a hybrid. There is a lot of government interference and regulation. Granted some of this interference and regulation is good for public safety. But some are intrusive, in spite of good intentions (i.e., minimum wage, dictating additives in gasoline, etc.).
Ryan C, I respect your opinions on socialization. However, the U. S. Constitution limits the powers of Congress and the Executive Branch to those powers specifically identified within the Constitution. It is my opinion that Education and Health Care should be left to the states.

Danita, if President Obama had announced his true agenda for America during the campaign he would never have been elected. But he is a very smart politician. He knows that even as President, he still has to deal with the moderate Democrats in Congress. So he isn’t going to spell out his entire agenda. Instead he (and the Liberal Democrats in Congress) will use popular issues to fulfill their agenda by way of the back door.
Today was an excellent example. President Obama knows that the public option will mean the death of private insurance. But instead of just coming out and saying their agenda is to destroy the private health insurance industry, under the guise of competition and the Free Market, they want to offer up one more option–the public option–knowing full well that it will eventually end private health care in America.

“Ryan C, I respect your opinions on socialization. However, the U. S. Constitution limits the powers of Congress and the Executive Branch to those powers specifically identified within the Constitution. It is my opinion that Education and Health Care should be left to the states.”
I disagree.
I think the education and health of our nation should be a federal priority even if ultimately administered by the states and local governments.

Ryan C, then candidate Obama campaigned on populist issues in order to get elected. His true agenda has been forged by his mentors over the past 30 years–specifically Frank Marshall Davis and the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.–and the teachings of Saul D. Alinsky.

Ryan C, we are discussing issues from different perspectives. Your’s is more socialist leaning, mine is from a capitalist, free market perspective (or if you prefer a neocon perspective). And President Obama’s is probably further left than your perspective (unless you were also mentored by the likes of Mr. Davis, Rev. Wright and the teachings of Mr. Alinsky).

Jake,
I appreciate your continuing efforts to pinpoint our president’s point of view on issues even when he would much prefer to gloss over them. You are one of the few left in the MSM to do that. Thank you.

I’m confused, is Obama not an advocate of the free market?