Does President Obama Need to Improve Health Care Reform Messaging?

“Does President Obama Need to Improve Health Care Reform Messaging?”
***
Yes!!!

We already KNOW he THINKS it is a moral imperative. And it is the DEMS who are using scare words against dissent and debate.
I think Dole must be funning Obama or the media or both. Obama should come and introduce his own legislation that will compete with his fellow Democrats existing bills on the floor?

Yes, he needs to improve the messaging. This is a no-brainer. He has given Congress enough time to figure out what they can do, now he needs to go all in and actually put his vision out there.
The polls show clearly that the majority of opposition to health care reform is based on believing a lie (death panels, elimination of private insurance, care for illegal aliens, etc.). He has to put the truth out there and hammer it as hard as the Republicans have been hammering the lies.

t seems a bit strange that the AARP has a website marginalizing opposition to Obamacare. The AARP is reportedly losing membership because of this antic.
Also, isn’t the AARP in the insurance business with a group plan offered for seniors in its membership?
Maybe the real answer to healthcare coverage is for the AARP to negotiate even larger and better group plans for seniors and for another group to (maybe with the AARP’s wise counsel on negotiating)to negotiate plans for other groups.
Then the AARP could consider itself useful, keeping the AARP out of liberal, socialistic politics and keeping the government out of the insurance business (and healthcare rationing as it over-promises, and underfunds).

Can you really trust anything Obama says when one of his closest advisors is an admitted communist?
And we all know what kind of character Tom Daschle is….. Chris Dodd?? LMAO you have to be ignorant to trust him
Lmao Charlie Rangel just found another million dollars he forgot to report LMAO..Yep I trust him too ..NOT

It is idle to fault the message. Realists know that it’s the substance of the legislation that has the electorate terrified.
As a couple of left-wingers here were agreeing just a couple of weeks ago, in a democracy with a free press, ultimately the truth will prevail. And that is what has happened.

The perpetuation of ‘death panels’ and the other mobster nonsense proves the president is getting drubbed in the message war. You cannot have that junk existing alongside a serious debate.

“How are we going to pay for it?”
stdntDrvr | Aug 31, 2009 3:26:16 PM
How are we going to pay for our current system, which is TWICE AS MUCH AS OTHER FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES FOR EQUIVALENT OUTCOMES?
Again, how do YOU propose the US continues paying $1 trillion a year more than the average of all other first world nations for health care (corrected for population)?
And don’t say tort reform – even the guy who had the gotcha question for Dean on it pegged those savings at chump change $20 million a year (a numbers supported by, and possibly from, the early 2000′s CBO studies).

jhw,
Way to answer the question…and I’ve never mentioned ‘tort reform.’

What Obamacare proponents assiduously ignore is the fact that a huge majority of Americans are insured, and a huge majority of the insured are happy with their insurance and their care. In short, there simply is no underlying discontent that warrants the enormity of the upheaval proposed, with the risks it poses for doctor-patient relations.
There are many sensible proposals that could substantially lower costs in this generally very well-liked system. None of those proposals are contained in Obamacare.

Hey jhw,
“The polls show clearly that the majority of opposition to health care reform is based on believing a lie (death panels, elimination of private insurance, care for illegal aliens, etc.).”
I’m going to turn the tables on you and ask what polls “clearly indicate the majority of opposition to health care reform is based on believing a lie.” I haven’t seen these polls of which you speak (but I probably don’t get my information from the same sources you do).
Citation please :^)

There are many sensible proposals that could substantially lower costs in this generally very well-liked system”
Wrong.
While people like their health care, they do not like the healthcare system.

In the June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA, Dr. Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the “overuse” of medical care:
“Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness,…This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically the Hippocratic Oath’s admonition to ‘use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment’ as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others.”
Americans don’t want this guy to touch their health care with a ten-foot pole.

“I know AARP is going nuts trying to get ever-younger people to join, but the majority of their membership is covered by Medicare, the “socialist” government insurance option.”
Perhaps these seniors are concerned they will lose access to Medicare Advantage when Medicare is cut under the Dems plans for “cost savings” (?)

“Sounds like rationing to me…”
tjp612 | Aug 31, 2009 3:42:51 PM
What isn’t rationing to you? Specifically, can you state what isn’t rationing? Having private insurance boards rule on approved medications? Lists of approved procedures? Life time spending caps?
That is the common reality of rationing now – by private companies to maximize their shareholder’s profits, NOT their policy holder’s health.
Welcome to the capitalist markets, a system OF RATIONING.

And don’t say tort reform – even the guy who had the gotcha question for Dean on it pegged those savings at chump change $20 million a year (a numbers supported by, and possibly from, the early 2000′s CBO studies).
Posted by: jhw539 | Aug 31, 2009 3:31:07 PM
Uhh, just so that you know that’s “CHUMP change (?)” – $20 BILLION !! dollars. A little off jhw!!! “The estimated $24 billion in malpractice costs in 2002 accounted for less than 2% of health care spending”
And that is the direct impact.
It is known that “defensive medicine” – the overuse of tests and prescriptions – was a growing problem 8-10 years from the “early 2000′s CBO studies” – NOW it is large and still growing.
Add to this that physicians are not practicing certain specialties in certain regions where malpractice costs have spiked, makes the supply and demand skyrocket the ability to deliver care in those areas.

Some of the scare tactics make me so angry I could spit. It amazes me that a public that seems to worship capitalism doesn’t realize what processes are used by private insurance to maximize profit. Anybody who thinks private insurance doesn’t have review boards who deny care isn’t really paying attention.
Denial of claims is a common practice – its common to have to fight to get your coverage when you’re a cancer patient.
It’s a moral issue, other industrialized nations decided that nobody should die from easily treatable health issues. Apparently in the US we are fine with 20,000 people dying every year.
I’m hacked off we aren’t having intelligent discussions on what we can do to resolve people getting ditched when they are sick and all those people with no medical care. Instead we get to hear stupid irrational made up stories and outlandish lies.
Sometimes it seems as if republicans have nothing left to offer but NO and HATE. The party that supposedly espouses Christian values whines they aren’t their brother’s keepers and shouts about ending existing programs.
If government regulatory involvement is so bad why is it good enough for our elderly and our military?
The current economic conditions inform us on the outcomes of lax regulation of the non bank financial institutions. What we will it take to get private health insurance regulated so they will do their job, standardize their processes and drive down their riduculous administrative overhead?

As Drs. Jerome Groopman and Pamela Hartzband of the Harvard Medical School inform us,
“The World Health Organization ranks the U.S. No. 1 among all countries in ‘responsiveness.’ Responsiveness has two components: respect for persons (including dignity, confidentiality and autonomy of individuals and families to make decisions about their own care), and client orientation (including prompt attention, access to social support networks during care, quality of basic amenities and choice of provider). This is what Americans rightly understand as quality care and worry will be lost in the upheaval of reform. Our country’s composite score fell to 37 primarily because we lack universal coverage and care is a financial burden for many citizens.”
In other words, our overall rank with the WHO is predetermined by their judgment that a lack of universality counts against a country, regardless of the responsiveness of overall care. And as for the financial burden, it is undertaken willingly by an overwhelming majority. (You pay more in the US, but on the other hand you can get your MRI tomorrow, and you don’t wait months for hospitalization as you do in other “first-world countries.”)

“Isn’t this EXACTLY what will happen if an increase in demand occurs without an increase in supply?”
Try reading the man’s paper
That is if you actually care which I doubt you can beyond its use as a talking point.

citizenvoter,
You honestly think that the VA is a ‘good’ health care system?

This will be such a great system that no one on Congress will be in it, nor will Obama and his family.
Say no to anything Obama will not subscribe his family to.

Fascist, as usual, is spreading widely discredited disinformation. He knows Emanuel does not support the theory that he was criticizing in the passage cited. He also knows that at the NIH and at the OMB that Emanuel has zero influence in crafting health care policy.
This is the next sentence of Emanuel’s quote, conveniently left out by the fascist:
“Clearly more needs to be done to elucidate what specific health care services are basic; however, the overlap between liberalism and communitarianism points to a way of introducing the good back into medical ethics and devising a principled way of distinguishing basic from discretionary health care services.”

“A recent poll by Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates found only 37% of respondents could pick the correct discription of the real “public option” out of a list.”
So what? You are saying that they’re stupid?
52% of them are.

Ezekiel speaks:
“One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives, and it has motivated policies on allocation of influenza vaccines and responses to bioterrorism. . . . Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one.
“However, other things are rarely equal—whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each—is unclear.” In fact, Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: “When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated.
“Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.”
The youngest are also put at the back of the line: “Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, ‘It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,’ this argument is supported by empirical surveys.” (thelancet, Jan. 31, 2009).

“Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Aug 31, 2009 3:50:17 PM”
ROFLMAO!
WSJ editorials?
Of course they leave out some criteria in their desperate attempt to provide talking points.
“WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).”
US Health care is #1 for rich people.
The rest of us? Who cares.

This is funny. Obama need to retool his message.
Indeed. His lies are simply not effective.

“Uhh, just so that you know that’s “CHUMP change (?)” – $20 BILLION !! dollars. A little off jhw!!!” robertb | Aug 31, 2009 3:46:51 PM
The questioner got it wrong then – he said $200 million over 10 years.
And yes, $20 billion out of a $2.2 trillion dollar problem is 1%, it assumes a perfect fit AND IT ACCOUNTS FOR SAVINGS FROM DEFENSIVE MEDICINE. Read the CBO reports – you’re whining about them not considering defensive medicing when the majority of their methodology (comparing states with tort reform, damage caps, liability limitations, etc with those without) was explicitly to account for the defensive medicine effect.
Being ignorant of all real research and facts on the subject is NOT a convincing argument.
Texas has strong caps and liability limitations. Has for over a decade. WHY IS THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS HIGHER THAN THE US AVERAGE?
Can you address that one question from reality? Where are the savings?

One thing I’m sure we can all agree on: no one who smokes a pack of cigarettes per day should receive any public assistance in obtaining health insurance. Simply by quitting smoking, he could afford a nice Blue Cross/Blue Shield policy.

jhw,
I asked the question “I’m going to turn the tables on you and ask what polls “clearly indicate the majority of opposition to health care reform is based on believing a lie.”” You have failed to deliver.
You then submit: “That’s a couple data points. The health care debate is currently about how many people the Republicans can get to believe their lies and get so disgusted with the debate they tune out.”
As I just posted, the Dems have the votes, no need to blame Republicans. When are you going to take a deeper look at why there is resistance amongst Democrats towards passing this legislation? The alternative is to PASS THE BILL!!! STOP BLAMING REPUBLICANS!!!

“Being ignorant of all real research and facts on the subject is NOT a convincing argument.”
To right wingers it is.
In fact if you actually know all the facts and figures you aren’t to be trusted.

“A majority believed the plans would give health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants.”
The majority is correct, as the Congressional Research Service recently reported. Although HR 3200 forbids reimbursement for services provided to illegal immigrants, the bill contains no enforcement mechanism. No one at any point in the system–provider, private insurer or public option–is required to ask for proof of citizenship. An illegal shows up, gets treated, and the doctor gets reimbursed. No way to stop it.

“STOP BLAMING REPUBLICANS!!!”
Yeah its so unfair to cite the many lies the Republicans have put forth in the healthcare debate.
After all they are the party of personal responsibility except when it comes to actually accepting it.

Yeah its so unfair to cite the many lies the Republicans have put forth in the healthcare debate.
After all they are the party of personal responsibility except when it comes to actually accepting it.
Posted by: Ryan C
Kind of like the distortions of the Republicans did nothing to help healthcare in the past….
Stange Ryan when you and other glorify the liberals for thier attempts to give us this magic pill, you always forget your greatest HERO in this fight choked on a compromise in the early 70′s with Nixon to get it!
Opps….Damn… FACTS REALLY SUCK !!!!

Don’t believe the lies from the apoligists for big Tort. They cling to their CBO report like a cracker to a rifle.
“an estimated 10 cents of every health care dollar paid by individuals and companies goes for litigation and defensive medicine. ” – Senator Bill Bradley arguing for a compromise in 8/29/9 NYTs editorial
That’s 250 billion dollars annually and that’s why the trial lawyers won’t permit it.

Obama doesn’t need a new message. Democrats need a new messenger.
And we need an honest President.
We need a President who doesn’t call those who disagree with him “Heirs to Bin Laden.”

“Yeah its so unfair to cite the many lies the Republicans have put forth in the healthcare debate.”
So, this would imply Dems up on The Hill are suckers for Republican “lies”, huh? It are the Democrats in Congress who are holding up “progress”…

“One thing I’m sure we can all agree on: no one who smokes a pack of cigarettes per day should receive any public assistance in obtaining health insurance.”
I’d love to see more personal culpability when it comes to our own health, but I’m sure you wouldn’t mind letting the Democrats try to enforce any kind of actual restrictions like this since I’m absolutely certain the Republicans will never take the potentially unpopular step of attempting it.

“I asked the question “I’m going to turn the tables on you and ask what polls “clearly indicate the majority of opposition to health care reform is based on believing a lie.”” You have failed to deliver.”
tjp612 | Aug 31, 2009 4:03:04 PM
I posted two citations. Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates and the NBC poll. Clearly you don’t care about facts or reality, but I’m comfortable that I’ve laid out my argument and anyone with an open mind will be able to find real data to consider.

“when you and other glorify the liberals for thier attempts to give us this magic pill, you always forget your greatest HERO in this fight choked on a compromise in the early 70′s with Nixon to get it!”
Mike_C | Aug 31, 2009 4:11:38 PM
Huh, and last week Obama was our greatest hero, before that it was Clinton. Can’t wait for you to tell me who my greatest hero is next week.

The majority is correct, as the Congressional Research Service recently reported”
Except they didn’t report that.
1 Congressman reported the report said that.
Since he is a Republican we can assume he is lying and wait for the actual report.

“After all they are the party of personal responsibility except when it comes to actually accepting it.
Posted by: Ryan C”
OMG! Responsibility???
Can you spell
T E D K E N N E D Y
kids?
How about
R A N G E L ???
How about
G E I T H N E R ???

Democrats have defeated several attempts to assure that only citizens get health care.
There’s no mistake.
Democrats plan next to provide the right to vote for all illegals and then for all those in Central America.

“Stange Ryan when you and other glorify the liberals for thier attempts to give us this magic pill, you always forget your greatest HERO in this fight choked on a compromise in the early 70′s with Nixon to get it!”
*chuckle*
While I admire ted Kennedy a great deal, he is not my greatest hero.
And you didn’t “remember” Kennedy’s purported compromise with Nixon you just read about it this weekend.
But being a sad right winger you could not eve relay that information without lying.

With the country in debt, over 840 trillion dollars, how will we pay for such a healthcare plan? Our children will be paying for the bailouts, where has that money gone? I don’t trust anyone in the Government to come up with a way to pay for the current debt! How can the country afford to pay for everyones healthcare insurance. Espeically for those people here illegally! What right do they have to our insurance?

@ jhw:
“Can’t wait for you to tell me who my greatest hero is next week.”
Perhaps Fidel Castro? Rep. Diane Watson is a big fan (is she your Rep.?). Below from recent townhall meeting:
WATSON: It was just mentioned to me by our esteemed speaker, “Did anyone say anything about the Cuban health system?”
And lemme tell ya, before you say “Oh, it’s a commu–”, you need to go down there and see what Fidel Castro put in place. And I want you to know, now, you can think whatever you want to about Fidel Castro, but he was one of the brightest leaders I have ever met. [APPLAUSE]
And you know, the Cuban revolution that kicked out the wealthy, Che Guevara did that, and then, after they took over, they went out among the population to find someone who could lead this new nation, and they found…well, just leave it there (laughs), an attorney by the name of Fidel Castro…
==============================
Good stuff…

We might need reform, we do not need the government in health care.They MIGHT trim costs by rationing care – how wonderful to have the government decide on your treatment and not you and your doctor. The olderst living person will be 66?!!!! Government is too big and so is the deficit.

Huh, and last week Obama was our greatest hero, before that it was Clinton. Can’t wait for you to tell me who my greatest hero is next week.
Posted by: jhw539
LOL…Im not sure, you guys change your minds every week !!!!! LOL Maybe Castro….

Yeah, Ryan… Charlie Rangel is REALLY accepting his personal responsibilities…ISN’t HE????”
Thanks for proving my point
Posted by: Ryan C
Oh did i miss something, is he FINALLY going to surrender his chairmanship?

LOL…Im not sure, you guys change your minds every week !!!!! LOL Maybe Castro….
Posted by: Mike_C |
This weeks nominees…
Eric Holder
Joe Kennedy
Bill Richardson
Castro

There is no need to ration care to cut costs.
Over a third of your insurance costs are due to insurance company administration, paperwork, lobbying, profit, and advertising.
That doesn’t even count the costs to your doctor and hospital, of that same paperwork on their end. They also spend on average 9% of their receipts on trying to collect from the insurance companies.
THAT is the cost savings of a public option. Where would anyone get the crazy idea that cost savings are going to come from rationing care?

Isn’t it amazing how the Republican lies are believed, while the Democrat lies aren’t? A Republican can say something about “death panels,” and all the yokels believe it. But when Obama lies about “if you like your plan you can keep it,” the same yokels see right through it.
It almost seems unfair sometimes. Too easy.

robertb, since the vast majority of malpractice claim compensation in fact goes into providing health care, what do you suppose will be the result of making it even more difficult for victims to get compensated?
Thats right, less health care.
Tort reform is simply another name for rationing health care.

If this health plan is so good why did the dems in congress vote down a proposal that would more or less make them drop their gold plated health care plan and sign up for the plan Obama wants the citizens under.
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

@ jhw,
You are now backpedalling and twisting. Here is your original statement:
“The polls show clearly that the majority of opposition to health care reform is based on believing a lie (death panels, elimination of private insurance, care for illegal aliens, etc.). He has to put the truth out there and hammer it as hard as the Republicans have been hammering the lies.”
You then respond with a couple of polls that do not support your original thesis. I point out that the polls you cite do not “show clearly that the majority of opposition to health care reform is based on believing a lie”. You respond with:
“Heh, you didn’t even bother to google them up did you? They DIRECTLY address the number of people who believe the most common health care lies. As I said, I posted them for people interested in learning about the issue.”
Can you see the inconsistency in your argument? You have NO poll that demonstrates that “the majority of opposition to health care reform is based on believing a lie.” Have you considered that opposition may be based on the following?
- Accelerating government debt, of which the servicing the interest alone is one of the top three expenditure items in the annual budget (how are we going to pay for this?)
- Inability of the federal government to execute initiatives of this scale in an efficient, cost-effective manner
- Distrust of politicians (from both parties)
- Bailout fatigue
- Vast majority of populace is
generally pleased with healthcare they receive and the insurance plans they have
- Examples of failures of socialized medicine in other countries
Care to backpedal and twist some more?

Jhw -
health insurance 2008 org seems to think Texas is slightly below the average, though physician specific costs are a bit higher. However I wonder how much COL / price demands are taken into account as Texas with Austin, Houston & Dallas has large metro regions.
Maybe you misread – Texas has a larger % of uninsured than average – that’s a different question – culture plays a part, illegal aliens – and Texas offers both a subsidized Health Insurance Risk Pool and regulates to limit the preexisting conditions exclusions in both group and small business plans

Posted by: Ryan C | Aug 31, 2009 5:08:15 PM
Ryan – Can you honestly explain how rationing will not occur if demand increases while the population of doctors does not increase?
An epidemic outbreak illustrates my point: The outbreak is a surge in demand that stretches available resources. Difficult decisions (as stated by Emanuel) will be made as to who is allocated/receives care from the scarce resources available. How is this different from the situation that will inevitable result from increasing demand (through increased coverage) for services without increasing supply?

robertb, since the vast majority of malpractice claim compensation in fact goes into providing health care, what do you suppose will be the result of making it even more difficult for victims to get compensated? Thats right, less health care. Tort reform is simply another name for rationing health care. Posted by: Flash Override | Aug 31, 2009 4:53:00 PM
An odd argument all around, are you a shill for the Trial Lawyers associations?
I’d say first “vast majority of malpractice claim compensation” to relief of the actual harm is a VAST exaggeration.
Consider the administrative costs, the legal costs, the claims for punitive damages and for pain and suffering which even as legitimate are not going to go to health care. Consider “70 percent of malpractice cases closed in 2003 were dismissed, 24 percent were settled, 5 percent were tried and found in favor of the defendant and 0.8 percent were settled in favor of the plaintiffs”.
And as I was arguing since $20 billion in direct costs of malpractice insurance is chump change according to progressive thought, the defensive medicine and the misallocation of physicians in certain specialties who refuse to practice where malpractice costs spike.

“Put up flow charts to show how it will work.”
The flow chart to show how it will work has been developed and House Republicans wanted to send to their districts to inform the electorate. Democrats vehemently blocked this move as it illustrates the degree of bureaucracy one could expect with govt. healthcare.
Search: GOP: Democrats Censoring Mail on Health Care, Washington Post

“The flow chart to show how it will work has been developed and House Republicans wanted to send to their districts to inform the electorate. Democrats vehemently blocked this move as it illustrates the degree of bureaucracy one could expect with govt. healthcare.”
So you think the Republicans have a right to a partisan mailer on the taxpayer dime?

“If people begin going to clinics instead of emergency rooms, there will be longer line at the clinics but less of a wait at emergency rooms. It costs far less for clinic vs emergency care.”
I agree – And I have no problem with tax dollars going towards public clinics. It would be a much more efficient solution. But, this legislation isn’t about providing healthcare, it is about expanding government.
“Are you really comparing epidemic outbreak with offering a public option?”
In a way, yes, from the standpoint of the how scarce resources would be allocated. The “public option” is a Trojan horse for single-payer. With single-payer comes surge in demand for scarce resources (similar to what occurs during an epidemic outbreak) resulting in rationing/incomplete allocations.

Teh liberals are trying to frame universal health care as an impertative and the public option is the only means to get there. Given the Federal governments track record on all sorts of programs and changes in parties who control the Federal appratus, public control is not re-assuring.
Many other nations, have universal health coverage with out the governmetn taking over. Switzertland has a great system of minimum insurance,individual and employer mandates and competive added value insurance. Their health care spending has remained for nearly 20 years at 11% of GDP. Germany is another one.
With the Pelosi shrill, that the public option is vital, how can we have a civil discourse and honest exploration and optinos. Given the increasing intensity of the demanding of the public option the leary of health care reform me and many others have become. I am not wondering if what we currently have is better than the sausage currently being made in DC.
Both left and right, need to be civil and present honest fact based assesments. Reforming 16& or 1/6 of our economy is something that shoudl not be rushed and entered into lightly or in reconciliation over the objections of the moderates and centrists.

Pelosi and Obama, try out alll your cost control ideas in Medicare and Medicaid first, prove they will reduce costs and PLEASE make sure we can honor the committments made to our SENIORS.
If we cannot honor our previous committments, we have no hope for honoring them for future generations. Quit spending money we DO NOT have!

“Single Payer is the cheapest and most fair.”
It’s all about “fairness” with liberals…everyone is equal regardless of their capabilities and efforts…this is a proven recipe for a stagnant society (otherwise known by terms such as “socialism” and “communism”).

The one basic concept being lost in this whole debate: Government run healthcare is unconstitutional. Period. That is above and beyond all of the many reasons it’s a really bad idea (cost, typical government effectiveness, etc.)

“Is that why “socialist” European countries have more social mobility than we do?”
Do they? How so? I think there are a lot of European immigrants who would disagree…
You and I fundamentally disagree…I of the camp that healthcare is a responsibility, not a right…

“Government run healthcare is unconstitutional. Period.”
When was government run healthcare found unconstitutional?
Oh yeah it wasn’t and the howls of right wing legals cranks won’t change that.
If Social Security has been found constitutional (and it has) then Medicare and any government run healthcare is as well.

No Obama needs to drop health care,and work on tort reform,first.Why is it that the Democrats will not consider Tort Reform to reduce health care costs?Add 47 Million more people and no more Doctor’s and we get Rationing,No way around it Rationing.

“Congressional Research Service says there’s no mechanism to stop illegal immigrants from being covered.”
They actually say alot more than that.
And since you are using the right;s version of the report, here’s the left’s take on it
ThinkProgress: “Sec. 242 and 246 of America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 explicitly state that only individuals who are lawfully present in US will receive any of the benefits provided in the bill. Stein is right that the CRS points out that the bill does not contain a mechanism to verify immigration status. Yet he downplays a key point of the report: under §142(a)(3), the Health Choices Commissioner is responsible for determining the eligibility of individual affordability credits which implies that he’ll also have to determine the mechanism to verify the eligibility and immigration status of noncitizens.
CRS’ analysis is pretty much in line with what others have been saying. Edwin Park of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and Jonathan Blazer of the National Immigration Law Center have both asserted that verification mechanisms for the new subsidy program will be determined during the implementation process (after the bill is passed) which allows the government to choose the “mechanism [which] best matches the underlying process for getting a subsidy.” The report also points out that nothing in the House bill overturns the precedent set by the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act which prohibited undocumented immigrants from being eligible for most public benefits and even severely restricted the eligibility of legal immigrants. It should also be noted that, in the case of Medicaid, stringent verification mechanisms are known to have barred more American citizens than undocumented immigrants at a high cost to taxpayers: for every $100 spent by taxpayers to implement documentation requirements in six states, only 14 cents were saved.”

Tort Reform….Howard Dean hit the nail on the head. BO doesn’t want to take on the trial lawyers. I guess BO figures the public is more gullible than the lawyers and will accept the scare tactic that we need to pass this bill before the August recess. Well that didn’t happen.

ALL YOUR BIRTHERS get over yourselves. We are going to have and need health care reform. I guess you Republicans don’t care as long as you are taken care of. That is why Pres. Obama will win in 2012.

and this is the transparent administration. Perhaps since no one had read the document they appear more transparent? Start by cleaning your own house. Clean the corruption from Washington and we could possibly pay for a lot of things.
Start by reading the Constitution. There must be one around there somewhere.

The President doesn’t need to change anything. Regardless of what he does, re-markets, re-packages, whatever you want to call it, it will be the same damn thing. He can try to push this crap on us until his face turns blue and it will still be the same damn thing. There is an old adage that says, “If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a damn duck!” And come this time next year, the President will be a lame duck himself. He will lose his dimwitted cronies in congress because a good lot of them will be voted out. Democrats and Republicans alike!

CRS’ analysis is pretty much in line with what others have been saying. Edwin Park of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and Jonathan Blazer of the National Immigration Law Center have both asserted that verification mechanisms for the new subsidy program will be determined during the implementation process (after the bill is passed)
===========
Ok.
So they’ll put (or not) mechanisms in place after the bill is passed.
This proves people are perfectly rational to have a concern that no such mechanism will be put in place, or the mechanism will work poorly.
In addition, there are plenty of people who either advocate for, or would be perfectly fine with, illegal immigrants being covered. So why assume they wouldn’t fight for that, and get a friendly ear (from the POTUS who supported drivers licenses for illegal immigrants when he was running for office).
What this demonstrates is people aren’t being convinced by *lies*, they are making educated predictions about what could happen as the bill gets created and implemented.

Start by reforming Medicare. Start by enacting laws which do not require people with private insurance at age 65 to be forced into the Mediare system (as is currently the case) to have their medical costs shifted to the taxpayer instead of their private insurance company.. no one talks about the huge savings that would generate. Why? Because it’s not really about savings and it’s not really about reform. It’s about control. No thank you!

Does President Obama Need to Improve Health Care Reform Messaging?
He might do better by just backing off.
The bill is poorly written, unless it means exactly what it says.
Too many Americans have given all for our freedom and a move into socialism would not be a very good follow-up to their sacrifice!

For starters, just what IS BO’s health care bill? Is it H.R. 3200, which has all the flaws its detractors say it has, or does he mean one of the numerous Senate bills? Does he have one of his own hidden somewhere?
What about first doing obvious things, like massive tort reform to eliminate expensive CYA tests and allowing people to buy health insurance across state lines? That way people who live in states that require all health care policies be comprehensive could buy health insurance at lower rates just for catastrophic coverage. This is what I’m looking for – I can pay for doctor visits and medicine myself.
Does it EVER occur to Democrats that maybe it’s the substance of “his” bill, not the style?

Posted by: MayBee | Aug 31, 2009 7:44:17 PM
***
What I said is I want to see some numbers, no? Wondered if anyone had a reference. I don’t really just speculate into blue heaven with made up stuff till I see numbers and data and explanations and why one country has less or more and how and why and blah, blah, blah. Amazing, isn’t it? That someone actually just wants to see data. sheesh. There’s more than one problem in our system. Just throwing up a country comparison for one illness without more info gives me exactly nothing to go on.

Mr. Obama does not have a basic understanding of the American people. That is why he is losing the health care debate so badly, and that is why the people have lost confidence in him and his approval numbers are pitiable. He is an aloof, distant elitist, and on his most ambitious agenda Item the people simply no longer believe what he says. They hear him–constantly– but they are no longer listening.

So the problem is in the messaging? Really? Maybe it’s the content. Ever think of that?

GLEN BECK OUR NEXT PREZ.

Okay, even Obama is not particularly adept at putting lipstick on this pig.

Why do people not discuss what this Health Care discussion is really about? Stem Cell research is almost ready to supply a cure to almost any ailment. In 5 or 10 years research will provide everything from new organs to simple things like new teeth. With the affluent Baby Boomers still a large portion of the population this will enable them to live far longer than any generation in recent times. Only by restricting the treatment to our large aging population can they hope to prevent our older citizens from drawing Social Security for 20, 30, 40 or more years. SS was designed to take one from 62 to around 66 or 68. That’s 4 or 6 years and then the recipients were no longer around to draw SS. To save SS for the poor underclass they will have to limit SS for the older affluent. Even though you have paid into SS for 40 or so years they want you to leave your money to those that have never paid in a dime. The life long poor and illegals will live on your dime, while Obamacare will simply tell you, you are to old for this or that treatment. If our aging are allowed to keep their private Health Care they could live for many many more years with the new technology. The socialists just can’t seem to let the affluent use their wealth to live longer than the less fortunate. So they plan to restrict health care to all, to create a playing field level to all. First we spread the wealth around next we spread the health around. Socialism at it’s finest!

The Democrat Zogby now has Obama’s approval at 42%.

It has been said that when you capitalize anything in an email that is the same as yelling to wit:
LEAVE ME AND MY HEALTH CARE ALONE, DAMMIT
Thank you

I just read something about Canada and that because of the government controlled health insurance that they pay 48% of their annual income towards this. Why in the heck would I want my money to help pay for more people without jobs and without insurance. It’s called survival of the fittest. There are exceptions (children, the elderly or when someone’s insurance has been maxed)but in our country there are way to many freeloaders who already abuse the system, now we are going to guarantee them insurance on top of their monthly paycheck and foodstamps. I think I’m in the wrong line of work by working…

The majority of this nation want public health care. It works for every nation that has it. Not one of them will give it up. Bring on the vote!

RKing, we have already had one alcoholic in the white house, we don’t need a reformed alcoholic to process in the white house — Please keep Glen Beck home on election day!

Many physicians from England and Canada have come to America to work at health sciences and medical centers. They make more salary as teaching physicians than they ever did as general physicians in their prospective countries. It’s the physicians stupid who don’t like universal health care. They don’t want to lose their income status. Same with most pharmaceutical corporations. Greed from the Republican and far right are doing their very best to block any type of Public health care in America. They are simply greedy and self serving.

Does he need to improve his healthcare messaging? You’re kidding, right? How about keeping his power-obsessed hands off of our private sector and try actually winning the war so our troops an come home?

“maybe we would understand a little better if the president would read this health care package on his way home from ‘Marthas Vinyard’ or perhaps on his way to ‘Camp David’.”
Flo, what makes you think the president hasn’t read the health care bill? Because Lying Limbaugh can twist a quote 180 degrees?
“WHO KNOWS WHAT THE BILL SAYS?”
You would know, if only you would read it, Flo. HR 3200 is available on the internet.

I thought perhaps you brought up bankruptcies due to skyrocketing health care costs in this country because you thought reform might do something about that. My mistake.
Posted by: MayBee | Aug 31, 2009 9:23:11 PM
As I said, it could depending on how its set up, I think that’s the point of some of the health insurance reforms (regarding pre-existing conditions and so on) and the public option, but I actually like to research stuff not just make stuff up or demagogue. If I posted my theory, you’d pick it apart, no? And want data? Maybe not, but I would. Might as well gather meaningful data first– more meaningful data then what was posted, and from which my question arose. But, hey, bonus points for you for getting in the veiled shot.

Going back to the original question, Does President Obama Need to Improve Health Care Reform Messaging? My first post said simply, yes!!!!
Robert Reich has a great blog posted dealing specifically with messaging. (“The Guns of August, and Why the Republican Right Was So Adept at Using Them on Health Care”)
He points out a couple of issues– first, progressives are idea people while the GOP tend to be more about discipline, or maybe, more specifically, disciplined attack and disciplined resistance to change. The disciplined attack this August was made easier for them by the fact that there wasn’t a single, easy-to-understand progressive idea or plan to sell. There was a flexible kaleidoscope of ideas and plans to sell. The result was incoherence and chaos, unfortunately.
Reich writes: “August is coming to a close, and congressional recess is about over. History is not destiny, and Democrats and progressives can yet enact meaningful health care reform — with a public option. But to do so, we’ll need to be far more disciplined about it. All of us, from Obama on down.”
I agree. I’m hoping the Gang of Six is officially dead

The Managed Care Matters blog has two great posts on “The future without healthcare reform” (and “The future without healthcare reform– part two”), In a nutshell, new reports show that health benefit costs will jump more than ten percent next year and likely continue to increase ten percent a year, doubling every seven years. Hence, without reform that holds down costs, employers and employees will be paying $30,000 per family per year in health benefit premiums in 2016. And that doesn’t include deductibles and copays, which are also likely to go up. Also, check out the real world impact in part two– 178,000 small business jobs will likely be lost by 2018 as a result of health care costs. The number of uninsured could would likely reach upward of 65 million.

Obama will be a one term President (if he makes it that long). It has only been what 9 mos (or less), and his approval rating is in the gutter, he has no idea what’s going on in America, and frankly doesn’t seem to care. Nope, will never make it……..

I immigrated (legally) to America because of the individual freedoms and liberties she offers.
This is a country where you work hard you make a descent living and pay your proper due to the society, you live a good life.
I just dont understand why there are many ppl (40+ million) who need Govt to take care of them. There is something wrong!

Improve, would be a major understatement.

working hard to make a descent living?
Freudian slip?
Just nitpicking, but funny all the same.

The health care costs are expensive for a number of reasons. One reason is government intrusion (Medicare and Medicaid) the other is what we have done to the financial aspects of health care. What other insurance do you buy and use continuously? NONE! Does your car insurance cover oil changes or fill your gas tank? Does your home insurance cover the cost of yard work or maid service? OF COURSE NOT! Health insurance was never intended to pay for every damn health care visit, but that’s what we’ve done. Now add to that the intrusion of the government w/MCR & MCD and the forcing of insurance to cover trivialities like port wine birthmark removal and friggin’ hang nails.
If everyone uses their health insurance for every visit, people stop caring about cost (at least in the beginning) because the bill goes to their insurance company. There has been a disconnect between the consumer/patient and the PAYMENT of health service. If you go anywhere for a product or service, and it is too expensive, you’d walk out and search for a more affordable product or service. Honestly ask yourself when was the last time you or anyone you know ‘shopped around’ for the best price for a doctor visit? The way health insurance should have been used is you pay for your family’s regular visits and medicine which would force you to do comparison shopping because YOU’RE PAYING. If a tragedy happens, or a fatal illness strikes the insurance is there to assist in paying so you aren’t wiped out financially.
Now with that said, all that’s left to say is this; No one has a “right” to health care or good health. You don’t have a “right” to housing. You don’t have a “right” to food. You don’t have a “right” to a job. All of these things are important to our survival, but the government cannot and should not be providing those things for you. You need to provide them for yourself and the government should be ensuring our safety so we can pursue the things we as individuals need to survive.

Healthcare reform can help to reduce the inequalities in our healthcare system drastically. As someone who helps people in health care crisis, I’m all too familiar with the heartbreaking stories of those who do not have healthcare or are denied healthcare services by their insurance company. Some of my clients develop cancer and are then dropped by their health insurance companies. They do not qualify for Medicaid and thus, they are forced to go without lifesaving treatment. Others have developed Multiple Sclerosis and lose their jobs and cannot get health insurance because they are uninsurable and cannot afford the premiums. While you may not be one of these heartbreaking stories, there are other reasons why you should support reform:
• Fairness: No hardworking American should be denied access to quality affordable health care. The majority of my clients are working families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but whose jobs do not offer health insurance.
• Cost to personal finances: Healthcare insurance premiums are rising rapidly while wages are remaining stagnant. The average family premium will rise from 1,550 to 19,709 by 2019 in Tennessee without healthcare reform. Hardworking American families cannot bear this cost.
• Cost to business owners: Nearly 9 in 10 small business owners think health care should be available and affordable to everyone. Most small businesses don’t provide health coverage to employees—not because they don’t want to, but because they cannot afford to.
• American Advancement: In 2007, 11% of American children were uninsured. If, like most other industrialized societies do, one views children as a precious natural resource that will drive the nation’s economic future, then one might wish to ensure that every American child can get health insurance and proper health care. This would be a wise investment in America’s future.
• World Health Ranking: The World Health Organization ranked the US’ healthcare system 37th in the world based on citizens’ health care status, the responsiveness of its system, and fairness in financing.
• Morality: In the New Testament, Jesus calls his followers to “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:31). In order to be consistent with our Christian heritage, we shouldn’t let our fellow working Americans, our “neighbors,” go without coverage simply because their place of employment doesn’t offer coverage or because they have a pre-existing condition.

A national system is not the end of the world. Geez. It won’t even cost that much compared with the wars. How bad will it be to know your children can grow up and have medical care; your family and friends will be cared for despite any hard times they experience. Why the fear? We will still have private insurance. We can keep our insurance. It is like public school and private school. Every one gets an education, it is continually being worked on as a system. Those who want to can go to a private system. The country needs education and health. DUH.

all you need to know ’bout Republican views on health care is right here:
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who recently said that health care opponents needed to defeat health care reform with “prayer and fasting,” is now asking for blood.
“What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn’t pass,” she said in a speech at a Denver, Colorado fundraiser Monday.

TJ,
what gov’t run program has controlled costs and NOT run itself over a cliff in regards to funding and its original projections?

Obama should just SCRATCH THE HEALTH CARE BILL AND WORK ON TORT REFORM.The money he saves there can go to MEDICAID and those CITIZENS needing Health Care can fill out the form. HELLO, CONGRESS ARE YOU HOME UPSTAIRS. This is the perfect start to health reform in this Country, But NOT the perfect start for the Leftist Agenda, CZARS will replace Congress . Common Sense 101..

The Massachusetts Medical Institute published a study in November 2008 that is the definitive study on defensive medicine and which concludes that 20-25% of tests, procedures and referrals are defensive. It also agrees with previous studies that conclude defensive medicine equals, at minimum, 10% of overall costs.
Finally, what exactly is the downside of tort reform?
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | Sep 1, 2009 10:33:58 AM
*** Haven’t had time to read that report but will. Thanks for the reference.
As for downside, that’s what I’m researching a bit more at the moment. From what I gather, it’s the proposals to date as there are many ways to skin a cat, and we’re not so great at reaching bipartisan solutions as to how best to skin a cat, any cat (lol). I personally don’t like a jury cap for two reasons due to the cases that aren’t frivolous and escalating medical inflation. There’s a bit more on Tom Baker and the ongoing debate from back in 2006 at The Medical Malpractice Myth:Forget tort reform, The Democrats have a better diagnosis, by Ezra Klein, posted at Slate Magazine, Tuesday, July 11, 2006. It references Hillary’s and Barack’ prior proposal.

Is it possible that the media has played a role in advancing much of the misinformation that has been fed to the American public? It is much harder to disprove a lie than to advance the truth.

Regardless of what the Republicans might believe, Healthcare reform will pass this year, my warning to Republican and company is to come aboard, Republicans Absences from these reforms will backlash, they will pay dearly in the years to come, the acceptance of healthcare reform will be liken to medicare, a success my all measures.

I have tried to find the specifics of the “plan” and can’t find them anywhere. I think that if the white house believes in this, they should make it “transparent” as they like to say.
Something else I would like to know concerning the whole, “you can keep your insurance” thing is am I as a taxpayer going to be paying for my private insurance, and the public option, and for those who can’t afford any at all (under insured / uninsured)? Seems to me like those who keep their private insurance are going to be taking an additional hit. Hopefully the cost cuts that the government is counting on would more than offset this additional amount.

“Is it possible that the media has played a role in advancing much of the misinformation that has been fed to the American public? It is much harder to disprove a lie than to advance the truth.”
No, the one’s that are HONEST have read the parts that are NOT acceptable.
DENIAL is not a River in Egypt.
For those that can actually read, and comprehend.
Something evidently the Dems FOR this bill, think most Americans are illiterate morons.
One more thing of import,
Question?………..
If this Bill HR 3200, is SOOOO good, WHY do not our Reps also agree to be UNDER IT?.
Why?, because they KNOW it stinks.

We need the health care system reform. I know there are a lot of people without of health insurance. We need our health care reform ASAP.