President Obama's Healthcare Speech

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 4:20 am

I listened to a good deal of it (I was working in the same room as a TV and didn't have much traffic to make noise), and I'll watch the full thing to see what I think of all of it.

He seemed to be doing a good job. I did appreciate how he all but called shenanigans on the more scare-mongering of the GOP.

I just wish Presidential speeches didn't include so much damn applause.

Edit: Found the text and the full video. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/0 ... 81265.html

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 5:22 am

Well, you could ask the President to silence his applauders.

Anyhow, it's pretty weak tea, but he's timing the speech to get us through the final stretch, now that congress is back in session.

We have a thread about it.

-Crissa

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 12:51 pm

No I didn't. I was more interested in watching my team's closing pitcher take an already 2 - 1 ballgame and give up three runs to give them a 5 - 1 lead. (Well the first run was a home run from a player who used to be on the team, so I will excuse that; the subsequent two runs have no excuse.)

You know, perhaps presidental speeches could be more bearable if the President got everyone to stand up for stretching exercises at the 7th inning of his speech.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:25 pm

You know, I actually think baseball could possibly be more boring than listening to politicians make speeches that they may or may not intend on later adhering to. That's actually impressive.

violence in the media · Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:32 pm

Koumei wrote:You know, I actually think baseball could possibly be more boring than listening to politicians make speeches that they may or may not intend on later adhering to. That's actually impressive.

You've got to remember that baseball became the national pasttime in an era when the alternative for many Americans was watching the wheat grow.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:15 pm

tzor wrote: You know, perhaps presidental speeches could be more bearable if the President got everyone to stand up for stretching exercises at the 7th inning of his speech.

Certainly by the second or third act of the speech, especially in the State of the Union addresses.

In other news, one Representative Joe Wilson is in hot water over shouting 'You lie' at Obama over the health care reform not applying to illegal immigrants.

Which is scary. This guy is a member of the House of Representatives and he got so angry at the President of the United States that he accused the President of being a bald-faced liar, during a live televised speech, in the same room as the rest of Congress. He had to be pretty pissed to forget how much decorum he was surrounded by.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:17 pm

Koumei wrote:You know, I actually think baseball could possibly be more boring than listening to politicians make speeches that they may or may not intend on later adhering to. That's actually impressive.

Independent league teams are more interesting than the major leagues, they take more risks and they make more errors as well as more interesting plays (because in turn the pitchers aren't at the same level).

But most important, between the innings you have the best non-professional entertainment avilable. Watch a fan "sing for his supper" or a couple spin themselves dizzy and then run towards the MC dressed in the orange jacket, or the hot dog races (MUSTARD WINS), or you could forget all that and grab another beer.

It's a nine inning vacation!

shau · Post by **shau** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 5:30 pm

The last time I saw a minor league game it was defined pretty much by the failure of both teams to acquire adequate pitchers. Nothing like watching someone give up 6 walks in an inning, only to be replaced by someone somehow even worse.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 4:27 am

I just think baseball is very boring. At least with American Football, you can watch the cheerleaders, and with real football you can watch the crowd riot.

Ganbare Gincun · Post by **Ganbare Gincun** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 5:28 am

tzor wrote:Independent league teams are more interesting than the major leagues, they take more risks and they make more errors as well as more interesting plays (because in turn the pitchers aren't at the same level).

But most important, between the innings you have the best non-professional entertainment avilable. Watch a fan "sing for his supper" or a couple spin themselves dizzy and then run towards the MC dressed in the orange jacket, or the hot dog races (MUSTARD WINS), or you could forget all that and grab another beer.

It's a nine inning vacation!

Yeah. That shit is WAY more important then listening to the President talk about his proposals for reforming our broken-ass health care system.

ckafrica · Post by **ckafrica** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:21 am

Somebody with a brain who didn't watch it said this

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 1:09 pm

Ganbare Gincun wrote:Yeah. That shit is WAY more important then listening to the President talk about his proposals for reforming our broken-ass health care system.

Sure, with a baseball game, you never know how it's going to go.

With the president, you know precisely what he is going to say.

(Unless you take the NASCAR approach and watch it to see the car crashes, expected or unexpected "YOU LIE")

Count Arioch the 28th · Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:04 pm

Ganbare Gincun wrote: Yeah. That shit is WAY more important then listening to the President talk about his proposals for reforming our broken-ass health care system.

If you think President Shazam has any intention of fixing a goddamn thing you're an idiot. No president wants to disrupt the Status Quo. Gorbechev tried to change the status quo. Remember what happened to him?

The only reason I voted for him is because being an ineffectual moderate conservative is less threatening to me than being a complete and utter lunatic. Easy enough choice, but Obama won't change anything.

Sir Neil · Post by **Sir Neil** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 11:13 pm

Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote:If you think President Shazam has any intention of fixing a goddamn thing you're an idiot.

I dunno. He is fairly young and idealistic. I think he actually believes what he's saying.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 11:35 pm

We'll see. It's a big ship to turn around. Especially since it was run aground b the prior crew.

-Crissa

Surgo · Post by **Surgo** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 12:17 am

I was made substantially more optimistic when I heard the words "medical malpractice reform" from Obama.

Count Arioch the 28th · Sat Sep 12, 2009 1:36 am

Sir_Neil wrote:
Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote:If you think President Shazam has any intention of fixing a goddamn thing you're an idiot.
I dunno. He is fairly young and idealistic. I think he actually believes what he's saying.

I can't imagine someone even remotely experienced with American politics to think the president actually does anything.

If he really wanted to run the country, he'd be a CEO. We're an anarchocapitalist state, the federal government is essentially ballast.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 2:45 am

The only thing I know about the address to congress was...."You lie". :shrug:

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 3:36 am

Does anyone here actually know the impact of medical malpractice reform?

There's a couple ways to do things; one is to limit total payouts. That often leaves people unable to afford care over time, or means the payout covers only the legal fees. The other is to limit any ability to sue, which removes people's right to justice. These things (perhaps surprisingly) have no effect on malpractice rates or malpractice insurance costs in the real world.

The other thing you can do is work on open source systems designed to inform nurses and doctors of charts and actions taken or not taken, which actually reduces malpractice incidents, and then insurance costs and rates.

You can be sure which set of ideas the Republicans favor.

-Crissa

Ganbare Gincun · Post by **Ganbare Gincun** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 3:54 pm

Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote:If you think President Shazam has any intention of fixing a goddamn thing you're an idiot. No president wants to disrupt the Status Quo. Gorbechev tried to change the status quo. Remember what happened to him?

If he wasn't genuinely devoted to fixing health care, why would he bring up the issue in the first place at all? He could have directed the party to focus on much less controversial issues where he could have exploited the Senate majority and used them to score easy political points with the American public. Instead, he's decided to champion a cause that previous Presidents have tried - and failed - to implement. If he wasn't interested in disrupting the Status Quo, he would have just handwaved the issue and moved along to something less challenging with greater P.R. yields.

As far as Gorbechev goes - he presided over the collapse of the Soviet Union. Not only did the Empire fracture, but Russia went through a complete economic "Great Depression" style meltdown complete with shortages and rationing and everything. So yeah, that's gonna ruffle some feathers and result in some hurt feelings.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 4:12 pm

Crissa wrote:We'll see. It's a big ship to turn around. Especially since it was run aground b the prior crew.

If we are talking economic policy, It was the Bush administration that started the return away from the Supply Side theory of Reagan and towards the old flawed Keynesian economical model. Wall Street Journal - The Keynesians Were Wrong Again.

The record speaks for itself: In February 2008, President George W. Bush cut a deal with congressional Democrats to pass a $152 billion Keynesian stimulus bill based on countering the recession with increased deficits. The centerpiece was a tax rebate of up to $600 per person, which had no significant effect on economic incentives, as reductions in tax rates do.

... That boom ended as the Bush administration abandoned every component of Reaganomics one by one, culminating in Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's throwback Keynesian stimulus in early 2008.

No "The One" doesn't have to turn around the ship of state to return to the rocky coral reefs of Keynesian economics; that is the natural tendency in Washington anyway. Fortunately, there are some people in the world who are not that stupid.

Rejecting Keynesianism in favor of fiscal restraint, France and Germany saw economic growth return in the second quarter this year. India, Brazil and even communist China are enjoying growth as well. Canada enjoyed job growth last month.

U.S. economic recovery and a permanent reduction in unemployment will only come from private, job-creating investment. Nothing in the Obama economic recovery program, or in the Bush 2008 program, helps with that.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 4:21 pm

Surgo wrote:I was made substantially more optimistic when I heard the words "medical malpractice reform" from Obama.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

What part of "YOU LIE" don't you understand? The president LIES. He is the best snake oil salesman ever elected to the office of President. There is no way in hell he can go against the trial lawyers; they OWN him and his party. Wall Street Journal - The President's Tort Two-Step.

The only folks not on board are a handful of powerful trial lawyers, and a handful of politicians who receive a generous cut of those lawyers' contingency fees. The legal industry was the top contributor to the Democratic Party in the 2008 cycle, stumping up $47 million. The bill is now due, and Democrats are dutifully making a health-care down payment.

During the markup of a bill in the Senate Health Committee, Republicans offered 11 tort amendments that varied in degree from mere pilot projects to measures to ensure more rural obstetricians. On a party line vote, Democrats killed every one. Rhode Island senator and lawyer Sheldon Whitehouse went so far as to speechify on the virtues of his tort friends. He did not, of course, mention the nearly $900,000 they have given him since 2005, including campaign contributions from national tort powerhouses like Baron & Budd and Motley Rice.

Even Senate Finance Chair Max Baucus, of bipartisan bent, has bowed to legal powers. The past two years, Mr. Baucus has teamed up with Wyoming Republican Mike Enzi to offer legislation for modest health-care tort reform in states. That Enzi-Baucus proposal had been part of the bipartisan health-care talks. When Mr. Baucus released his draft health legislation this weekend, he'd stripped out his own legal reforms. The Montanan is already in the doghouse with party liberals, and decided not to further irk leadership's Dick Durbin ($3.6 million in lawyer contributions), the Senate's patron saint of the trial bar.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 4:32 pm

Ganbare Gincun wrote:If he wasn't genuinely devoted to fixing health care, why would he bring up the issue in the first place at all?

There are a number of reasons.

"Never let a crisis go to waste."
Because he wants to go one up on Hillary who failed to pass it.
Because he really believes that government is the answer and wants a single payer system and this is the way to get that in over time.
Because under the Chicago model of politics; that's how you get the votes; by bribing the clueless by giving them their own money.

Heath Robinson · Post by **Heath Robinson** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 4:36 pm

tzor wrote:What part of "YOU LIE" don't you understand? The president LIES.

You say that like it's news.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 8:27 am

What part of, "The Wall Street Journal's Opinions page has no ombudsman," have you not understood, tzor?

You basically just accused the President of lying, and then provided a sentence that makes a tautology. There's no evidence the President is lying.

And guess what? This President got elected without the efforts of PACs and Pioneers and other super-rich donations. You can lie about it via a WSJ op ed quote, but there's nothing you can do to disprove this. The President raised over 730 million campaign dollars in 2008, so 0.5 million dollars in 2005 through 2008 isn't really 'ownership.'

Please, prove that he's lying about anything. But 'proof' isn't someone agreeing with you.

-Crissa