President Obama: "So, let me explain what reform will mean for you. "

[ProSense]

Prepared Remarks of President Barack Obama

Weekly Address

Saturday, August 8th, 2009

On Friday, we received better news than we expected about the state of our economy. We learned that we lost 247,000 jobs in July – some 200,000 fewer jobs lost than in June, and far fewer than the nearly 700,000 a month we were losing at the beginning of the year. Of course, this is little comfort to anyone who saw their job disappear in July, and to the millions of Americans who are looking for work. And I will not rest until anyone who’s looking for work can find a job.

Still, this month’s jobs numbers are a sign that we’ve begun to put the brakes on this recession and that the worst may be behind us. But we must do more than rescue our economy from this immediate crisis; we must rebuild it stronger than before. We must lay a new foundation for future growth and prosperity, and a key pillar of a new foundation is health insurance reform – reform that we are now closer to achieving than ever before.

There are still details to be hammered out. There are still differences to be reconciled. But we are moving toward a broad consensus on reform. Four committees in Congress have produced legislation – an unprecedented level of agreement on a difficult and complex challenge. In addition to the ongoing work in Congress, providers have agreed to bring down costs. Drug companies have agreed to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors. The AARP supports reform because of the better care it will offer seniors. And the American Nurses Association and the American Medical Association, which represent the millions of nurses and doctors who know our health care system best, support reform, as well.

As we draw close to finalizing – and passing – real health insurance reform, the defenders of the status quo and political point-scorers in Washington are growing fiercer in their opposition. In recent days and weeks, some have been using misleading information to defeat what they know is the best chance of reform we have ever had. That is why it is important, especially now, as Senators and Representatives head home and meet with their constituents, for you, the American people, to have all the facts.

So, let me explain what reform will mean for you. And let me start by dispelling the outlandish rumors that reform will promote euthanasia, cut Medicaid, or bring about a government takeover of health care. That’s simply not true. This isn’t about putting government in charge of your health insurance; it’s about putting you in charge of your health insurance. Under the reforms we seek, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.

And while reform is obviously essential for the 46 million Americans who don’t have health insurance, it will also provide more stability and security to the hundreds of millions who do. Right now, we have a system that works well for the insurance industry, but that doesn’t always work well for you. What we need, and what we will have when we pass health insurance reform, are consumer protections to make sure that those who have insurance are treated fairly and that insurance companies are held accountable.

We will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms, colonoscopies, or eye and foot exams for diabetics, so we can avoid chronic illnesses that cost too many lives and too much money.

We will stop insurance companies from denying coverage because of a person’s medical history. I will never forget watching my own mother, as she fought cancer in her final days, worrying about whether her insurer would claim her illness was a preexisting condition. I have met so many Americans who worry about the same thing. That’s why, under these reforms, insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage because of a previous illness or injury. And insurance companies will no longer be allowed to drop or water down coverage for someone who has become seriously ill. Your health insurance ought to be there for you when it counts – and reform will make sure it is.

With reform, insurance companies will also have to limit how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses. And we will stop insurance companies from placing arbitrary caps on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime because no one in America should go broke because of illness.

In the end, the debate about health insurance reform boils down to a choice between two approaches. The first is almost guaranteed to double health costs over the next decade, make millions more Americans uninsured, leave those with insurance vulnerable to arbitrary denials of coverage, and bankrupt state and federal governments. That’s the status quo. That’s the health care system we have right now.

So, we can either continue this approach, or we can choose another one – one that will protect people against unfair insurance practices; provide quality, affordable insurance to every American; and bring down rising costs that are swamping families, businesses, and our budgets. That’s the health care system we can bring about with reform.

There are those who are focused on the so-called politics of health care; who are trying to exploit differences or concerns for political gain. That’s to be expected. That’s Washington. But let’s never forget that this isn’t about politics. This is about people’s lives. This is about people’s businesses. This is about America’s future. That’s what is at stake. That’s why health insurance reform is so important. And that’s why we must get this done – and why we will get this done – by the end of this year.

Thank you.

(emphasis added)

Perfect.

[Deja Q]

1. K&R #2

[silverweb]

2. Thank you, Mr. President!

[BlooInBloo]

3. A much better lede.

[jody]

4. (1) What will I get that I don't already get and (2) how much will the new program cost me?

That's the two questions that I keep hearing from my friends in the community.

[ProSense]

6. Here

THE SECURITY YOU GET from health insurance reform:

[jody]

8. Sorry, that is too general to answer the questions that I hear posed by my friends. n/t

[ProSense]

10. The questions are sort of curious.

Why would they think this is going to cost them anything?

[jody]

12. It's going to cost somebody so who do you think will pay the additional cost? n/t

[ProSense]

24. Seriously,

have you been following the debate? Your responses seem to indicate that you're really interested in health care reform. How to pay for it has been one of the most debated points. That you seem unaware of the various scenarios is interesting.

[jody]

28. See #25. n/t

[ProSense]

9. Question:

"What will I get that I don't already get"

Are your friends happy with the way things are or do they support reform?

[jody]

14. Some are happy, those with good coverage, and some unhappy, those with limited or no coverage. n/t

[ProSense]

21. Delete, wrong place n/t

[jody]

25. I've followed the debate very closely and the assertions about who pays is still unanswered.

No one can know who pays and who profits until congress votes for a final bill that Obama must sign with all its flaws.

[ProSense]

30. BS. n/t

[jody]

32. Is that your final answer to a legitimate question? n/t

[wininboy]

105. Yes, obviously

PS has no desire or ability to actually engage in a discussion of the issues. Cut and paste links, and personal attacks are all PS has

[Mass]

36. 2) is not answerable until you know what will be in the bill, but the guidelines have already been

posted. Among them, no additional taxes below $250,000 a year.
As for the first one, a chance that they will not get sick because somebody else non insured does not go to the doctor. That is, if they are so selfish they do not care about everybody having access to health care. The certainty they will find an insurance if they lose their job. The certainty that their insurance will not be able to throw them out or raise their rates if they become sick. A lot of things like that.

[jody]

37. I know guidelines have been posted but since when has Congress followed guidelines? n/t

[Mass]

38. The guidelines are IN the congress bills already existing and if anything the missing bill is trying

to get the costs lower (possibly by making the bill useless, but this is a different question). The point is that nothing is free. Currently, your friends pay taxes for those who do not have insurance and end up at the emergency room sicker than they needed to be. Even if they were going to pay a little more for this healthcare bill, they would probably end up paying less and their moral sense would feel better as well.

[jody]

40. OK they will pay more but it's really less and they will feel good. n/t

[damonm]

103. It seems you're missing the point...

and from the tone and tenor of your responses here, I suspect deliberately so.
Let me break it down further.
Your friends (AND you & I, for that matter) are ALREADY paying for the uninsured who go to the ER (who are sicker than they need to be, as they can't afford preventive care) and can't pay for the care they get there. Under reform, these costs are rolled into the plan, helping to pay for it. (We get more bang for the buck here, as that money's paying for cheaper preventive care.) Premiums and copays that people using the public option would pay more of it. Reductions in cost from Medicare reimbursement reform also roll into this. Any gaps are made up by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for those making over $350,000/year.

[jody]

110. Sorry "you're missing the point" not I so why don't you answer #4 rather than attack me? n/t

[damonm]

112. Not I.

You're still determined to miss it. And why so defensive unless I've hit near the mark?

And I'll be happy to answer your questions from 4 (despite the fact they've already been answered as specifically as possible given the dearth of info you've supplied), but can't w/o more info from you;
to wit:
(a) what's your current healthcare like?
(a1) Who provides it? Is it thru an employer?
(a2) how much do you pay for it?
(a3) what are your current exclusions, limitations, etc.?
(a4) are you happy with it?

(b) How much do you earn in a year?

Provide those, and I can answer you. Odds are, it's going to get you exactly what you're getting now for less money than you're paying now, as a strong public h/c option will force private insurers to lower their costs in order to compete.

[jody]

113. Is it likely that some voters might get less health care than under their current plans & pay more?

I don't expect an answer because we both know those questions cannot be answered because no one knows what the eventual plan will do.

[damonm]

114. I don't think so.

Especially as the President has indicated strongly he'll veto any such.
Besides, the scenario you posit here is ALREADY happening under the current system,without one iota of help from Congress.

[jody]

116. IMO Obama will sign any health-care bill that comes to him and declare "Mission Accomplished" amidst

bipartisan leaders and an orchestrated national celebration.

The winners behind the scene will be the corporatists who really control both parties.

[damonm]

119. As you wish.

We shall see what comes out in the wash. I don't share your cynicism.

And if it's all SO hopeless, what's the point of your being here?

[jody]

121. Not my wish, my expectation. I'm here because I'm a Yellow Dog Democrat & a progressive and I will

exercise my right to freedom of speech because I don't trust any politician, not a single one.

"what's the point of your being here?"

[lumberjack_jeff]

57. 1) If you get sick, your insurance can't be cancelled.

2) If you don't have insurance, you'll be able to get it.

3) If you're working poor, your care will be free. If you're middle income, the government will subsidize your premiums so that they are a small percentage of your income. If you work, your employer will be required to provide most of your coverage. If you make more than $250,000/year your taxes will go up.

4) If we take the Republicans advice and do nothing, in ten years it will cost you twice as much as it does now.

[jody]

65. Understand but what about people who already have insurance? n/t

[donco6]

66. People with insurance have been getting cancelled.

Now they won't be able to get cancelled just because they get sick. That's a change. It used to happen all the time.

[jody]

80. Thanks but that doesn't answer the questions in #4. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

86. Yes it does. It answers it directly.

"You'll get the peace of mind that comes from knowing that your insurance company can't kill you by cancelling your policy."

[jody]

95. Have a good day. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

97. The progressive movement is at a crossroads.

I wish you would contribute.

[jody]

98. I've contributed for half a century as a Yellow Dog Democrat. Glad you could join us progressives.

[lumberjack_jeff]

107. Oh, now I get it. Healthcare reform seems important until one qualifies for medicare. n/t

[jody]

109. LOL Health care reform is important to me because of my children, grandchildren, hundreds of

relatives, and thousand of friends as well as my desire to help all in need.

Sad that you would try to twist my words as you did.

[grantcart]

60. The starting point of any discussion is that what they think they "get" is not sustainable.

What they have in coverage is disappearing. Without any change the policies and the system that they know have will become nonexistent because of the increasing costs and lack of control.


This is not a debate about what they have and some other system it is about creating a system that is sustainable.


What will you get that you don't already have? Coverage that is sustainable over the next 10 - 20 years. Now you don't have that.

2) How much will the new program cost me? Depends on the details and the coverage, but in any case it will cost you less than if nothing is done. Right now we spend 18% GNP on Health Care compared to everyone else's 9%. Your friends currently have the most expensive and least effective system in the world. You might point out that no other country wants what they have.

[jody]

64. If what you say is true that government can operate a business at lower cost and higher quality,

what other businesses has government taken over in the U.S. and achieved those goals?

[grantcart]

70. Its a complicated issue but the simple answer is:

We have three types of commercial activity

1) Largely free market. Most manufacturing and retail, is for example, without much government involvement. Services get more complicated.

2) Highly regulated business. Insurance, for example, is an industry that by its nature requires government oversight. If somebody buys a life insurance policy, for example, they need to know that the money paid is being allocated to the appropriate asset base so that money will be in hand 30 years from now when needed.

3) Government as producer/private enterprise as provider. Airports and airliners, for example. This answers your question. Government entities have taken over the operation of airports, flight operation, flight safety, etc. The need for immediate profits makes it impossible for private enterprise to produce the super structure for aviation. Privately owned companies provide the actual service and in a hybrid industry this mix is the most efficient. Health care should parrallel the aviation industry in that the government should act as the structural framework in a single payer system and that they should be reimbursing individual doctors and hospitals who should continute to compete as profit making enterprises.

[jody]

78. Thanks "what other businesses has government taken over in the U.S. and achieved those goals?" n/t

[grantcart]

83. Why are you repeating the question?

Here are some very similar examples:

1) Aviation Industry - government owns and operates all of the airports and controlling systems letting private business compete for providing the direct service. An exact parrallel to the Canadian single payers system for health care.

2) Public health - specifically CDC. The government 'runs' public health and the assault on contagious disease. Measles, mumps, chicken pox all have been efficiently eliminated as public health threats, small pox has been eliminated world wide.

3) Fire protection and emergency ambulance service.

And so on.

[jody]

94. OK, but what private businesses has govt taken over and operated efficiently and effectively? n/t

[grantcart]

100. You are aggressively obtuse

Medicare.

The government took over the care of seniors from private enterprise and operates at about 5% overhead versus private health care at 35%.

Most emergency ambulance service in the United States has been replaced with local fire departments replacing private contracts.

Federal Bankruptcy referees regularly take over businesses that have gone bankrupt and 'run them efficiently and effectively'.

You keep articulating Republican talking points without reflecting any understanding of the issue.

The health care industry does not operate as a 'private business' in a free market. There is nothing the least bit capitalistic about it, it is much more similar to a mercantile economic system.

Every other developed country has had the government take over the function of assessing revenue and paying (in most cases competing private health care providers) more efficiently.

[Flying Dream Blues]

101. Didn't your subject line just say it all?

Now, why would someone be aggressively obtuse? There's a question.

[jody]

108. Medicare report says it's broke. Govt can't manage it so how can it do better with an expanded

government health care program?

A SUMMARY OF THE 2009 ANNUAL REPORTS Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees

A MESSAGE TO THE PUBLIC:

Each year the Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds report on the current and projected financial status of the two programs. This message summarizes our 2009 Annual Reports.

The financial condition of the Social Security and Medicare programs remains challenging. Projected long run program costs are not sustainable under current program parameters. Social Security's annual surpluses of tax income over expenditures are expected to fall sharply this year and to stay about constant in 2010 because of the economic recession, and to rise only briefly before declining and turning to cash flow deficits beginning in 2016 that grow as the baby boom generation retires. The deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about three fourths of scheduled benefits through 2083. Medicare's financial status is much worse. As was true in 2008, Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures this year than it receives in taxes and other dedicated revenues. The difference will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets. Growing annual deficits are projected to exhaust HI reserves in 2017, after which the percentage of scheduled benefits payable from tax income would decline from 81 percent in 2017 to about 50 percent in 2035 and 30 percent in 2080. In addition, the Medicare Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund that pays for physician services and the prescription drug benefit will continue to require general revenue financing and charges on beneficiaries that grow substantially faster than the economy and beneficiary incomes over time.

The drawdown of Social Security and HI Trust Fund reserves and the general revenue transfers into SMI will result in mounting pressure on the Federal budget. In fact, pressure is already evident. For the third consecutive year, a "Medicare funding warning" is being triggered, signaling that non-dedicated sources of revenues—primarily general revenues—will soon account for more than 45 percent of Medicare's outlays. A Presidential proposal will be needed in response to the latest warning.

The financial challenges facing Social Security and especially Medicare need to be addressed soon. If action is taken sooner rather than later, more options will be available, with more time to phase in changes and for those affected to plan for changes.

[damonm]

117. Except, it doesn't say what you say it does...

It says it WILL BE broke in 2017. Such projections are based on the current out-of-control rate of cost increase, which current legislation aims to curb sharply. Action is being taken to control these costs and thus prevent such an occurrence. This sounds like responsible managemnt to me.

[jody]

118. You are a great candidate for Enron's board. n/t

[damonm]

120. Wow. Wrong AND irrelevant at the same time. Well done!

So, acting to head off disaster by heeding warning signs is what Enron did?

Not on planet Earth.

[jody]

122. I was merely pointing out your rosy picture of a govt corporation when all facts point to a growing

problem with funding medicare.

[damonm]

126. If fact is "rosy", then guilty as charged.

There IS a growing problem. That's a fact.
It is also fact that pending legislation is acting to correct that growing problem.
If you choose to see that as "rosy", so be it.
And, for a 90-degree subject change, have you ever read "The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy"? Methinks you and Marvin would find much in common.

[jody]

128. What subject change? #100 used medicare and I responded to that. Surely you know Obama said "We all

know right now we've got a problem that threatens Medicare and our entire health care system," . . . "Unless we act, within a decade, the Medicare trust fund will be in the red." See http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/28/politics/politi...

What do you know that Obama doesn't know that makes you so confident that "It is also fact that pending legislation is acting to correct that growing problem."

I'm sure Obama would like to know those facts to which you refer.

[damonm]

129. *sigh* If you didn't get the subject change, you have bigger problems than I can handle,

...as it would be obvious to someone with reading comprehension skills, in which you appear to be painfully lacking. Either that, or you are deliberately obtuse to a degree bordering on Republican.

As to "pending legislation", try reading HR3200; try boning up on current Congressional efforts to reform Medicare reimbursement schedules; both of these, as well as the ENTIRE BLINKIN' HEALTH CARE REFORM EFFORT, are directly aimed at addressing the spiraling costs that threaten to drive Medicare into the red, as well as threatening the economy as a whole.

All of this is common knowledge to anyone who's been paying attention over the past 4 months, and Obama knows this FAR better than I, I'm sure.

But I waste my typing, for you will ignore this just as you have obviously ignored virtually everything in the debate so far. You claim to be well-informed, but almost everything you say contradicts that claim. And I have no more time to waste trying to educate the deliberately ignorant.

[jody]

131. I see your opinion of me is much higher than mine of you. Goodbye. n/t

[boppers]

74. Two questions, two answers.

(1) What will I get that I don't already get
A. Lifetime guaranteed coverage, regardless of your health, gender, income, employer, or history
(2) how much will the new program cost me?
A. Nothing new, or less than before. The cost is being taken care of by sucking the insane profits out of the insurance industry, medical industry, and pharmaceutical industry.

[jody]

81. Cost nothing! Sorry but I don't believe my friends will accept that answer and they're Dems. n/t

[boppers]

88. Tell them it'll cost $4.50 per paycheck, then.

That way, it will "cost something".

[jody]

96. LOL That's as credible as anything else I've heard. n/t

[damonm]

115. Well...

They can also "not accept" that the Earth is round, or that the Sun rises in the east. Acceptance has little bearing on fact.

[jody]

123. "Acceptance has little bearing on fact" but it acceptance does determine votes and that's politics.

[Eric J in MN]

5. 'We will stop insurance companies from denying coverage because of a person's medical history.'

I hope the bill doesn't say they can't drop coverage for pre-existing conditions, while letting them drop coverage by claiming the insured did something else wrong.

[ProSense]

7. Here:

THE SECURITY YOU GET from health insurance reform:

[jody]

11. I agree re "pre-existing conditions" but that will spread those costs over those already insured.

Any idea how much that will increase the cost of those already insured by various programs?

[ProSense]

13. That's the Fox Noise version of health care reform. n/t

[jody]

15. Forget Fox, that is one of the questions my friends ask and they all vote and voted Obama. n/t

[ProSense]

18. Sorry, I can't

Anyone who has been following the debate and listening to Democrats would not be asking such a question.

[jody]

20. I've been following the debate and listening to Democrats but no one has answered those questions.

Perhaps that's one of the reasons no one has been able to convince the public that Health Care Plan X is the right thing for voters since Plan X is undefined.

[ProSense]

23. Not true.

Many scenarios have been presented.

[jody]

26. LOL "Many scenarios" but the only one that matters is what Congress votes for and Obama signs. n/t

[ProSense]

29. Why are you laughing? You didn't know they even existed.

Maybe you should respond to your friends the same way you responded to my comment.

[jody]

33. I laughed because you make assertions re some hypothetical plan but admit that there are several

versions that could be passed.

Surely you see the humor in that, don't you?

[ProSense]

34. What's really funny is that you had no clue

and none of the scenarios support the Fox Noise version.

[jody]

35. Please listen to me, IMO you and I could set down and jointly agree on the basics of a health care

plan including who pays for what.

My problem is I don't trust politicians of both parties and their corporatist puppet masters to do what's right for We the People.

I sincerely fear that when the dust settles over this matter, corporatists will be much, much richer and some only some of We the People will get a few token crumbs.

[lumberjack_jeff]

59. Exactly right.

Anyone who is educable in these matters already knows that the people who would die for lack of coverage in the current system will get care in the reformed system, and that it won't be free.

And they're okay with that.

[Eric J in MN]

19. The insurance companies will be making more money overall,

...because of the millions of new customers they'll have when health insurance is mandatory.

So if they raise premiums and blame it on having to sell insurance to people with pre-existing conditions, that won't reflect the big picture.

[jody]

22. That's my expectation also. :thumbsup:

[ProSense]

27. "if they raise premiums and blame it on having to sell [ins.] to people with pre-existing condition"

How is that going to happen when premiums are capped?

[jody]

31. How do you know premiums will be capped? I've followed the debate and scanned HR 3200 but

its 1017 pages undoubtedly have innumerable ambiguities and loopholes that corporatists exploit for profit and amendments that have who knows what effect on the final bill.

Given that no one knows what the final bill will look like that IMO Obama will sign, I don't trust anyone who claims this or that for Health Care Plan X.

[Mass]

39. So, what do you suggest. That we stop everything and stay where we are.

What is your point?

[jody]

41. See "4. (1) What will I get that I don't already get and (2) how much will the new program cost me?"

Those questions are understood by people with no high school degree so why do they baffle others?

[Mass]

46. Happy you have a good healthcare. Others do not and have a chance to get it. Except if people like

you prefer blocking it for pure political reasons. To those I say. F*ck you.

[jody]

47. I'm blocking nothing however, I am concerned that Congress and Obama have not been able to present

a solid plan that voters understand.

[wininboy]

106. You don't speak for me

I don't have any health care, and you definitely do not have my interests at heart, so please don't pretend that you speak for me.

Go F*ck yourself

[Baltoman991]

43. What the local

Obama daily basher is wanting is for nothing to be done in the hopes that it will get Obama crushed in the 2012 elections.

It's quite obvious to me that prosense has answered her questions and it has now become a game to the poster you're responding to.

That poster is just another in a long line of posters who can't get over the primaries and are hoping above all hope that Obama falls flat on his face so they can come back and tell us "we told you so".

[Mass]

45. Thanks. I was starting to get this as there was clearly no way this person cared about answers.

[jody]

48. Problem is you have yet to answer the two questions I posed earlier in this thread. If there is a

failure in our exchange, it is your inability to give coherent answers.

[dflprincess]

49. Somewhere I found in the bill that premiums will be capped at 11% of your gross income

if you're single and make $43,000 (the current max for subsidies, though Pelosi said she's open to lowering that) your premium could be nealy $400 a month, though your employer would pick up some of it (don't know how much).

There will also be out of pockets of up to $5,000 for a single making 43K or more and the premium you pay will not be applied to that. If you make less that 43K, your out of pocket will increase as your income does but you will receive some subsidy.

It still sounds to me that we'll be paying more and getting less. The big winners with HR3200 will be the insurance companies. Most of us will not be eligible for the public "option" for years. One has to wonder how it can be called an option when it really won't be one for most people.

[jody]

52. Thanks, answers like that are what blue/grey collar workers understand. n/t

[lynne]

127. The cost-share max for a family is $10,000. PLUS there's deductible -

- but I've not seen where the amount of deductible is listed anywhere. So we have premium + cost-share aka co-pay + deductible to remit.

I'd feel better if we had some specific dollar amounts. I know I wouldn't buy a car without knowing what was under the hood and how much my monthly payments would be. I need that info here, too.

[SpartanDem]

62. Read it in black and white

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c1...

[jody]

63. Your link is broke, are you referring to HR 3200 with the final amendments yet to be passed so we

know what it means?

[SpartanDem]

73. The section regarding premiums limits can be found in section 243

I believe this the bill as passed of the energy and commerce committee http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbna...

If go down the page you see can what amendments were made each day of the markup http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_co...

[jody]

77. Thanks but the only thing that matters is the final bill signed into law. No one knows what that

might be.

[Eric J in MN]

79. Section 243 is about the federal gov't helping people pay premiums...

...it doesn't cap what the insurance companies can charge.

[TomCADem]

16. President Obama Should Throw In Some Powerpoint Slides

For example, here is an easy one:

<>

[jody]

17. Makes sense, that will certainly sway Joe Sixpack. :sarcasm:

[Cha]

42. Thank you for this, PS..

and for trying to explain it to those whose only purpose is to jerk off.

[dccrossman]

44. K&R

Thanks for posting this.

[firedupdem]

50. Rec'd! That's my President! n/t

[eridani]

51. Except that he is lying about being able to keep your doctor

I will lose mine when my COBRA runs out. All proposals so far allow private insurers to retain the preferred provider lists than now prevent most people from having free choice of providers. The public option, not available until 2013, will not require doctors to accept it.

And there is one pre-existing condition that insurers will be allowed to DOUBLE premiums for--older people not yet old enough for Medicare.

[Mass]

53. Those are very valid questions, but certainly not questions the RW wants to discuss.

And what he is saying is that, if you keep your own insurance, you will be able to keep your doctor (assuming that he does not drop your insurance). I would not expect him to put everything in a speech. What he is trying to say is that things will not change.

But I agree the questions you ask are questions that would need to be discussed.

[solstice]

56. Where do you get that insurers will be allowed to double premiums for older people?

Because if this is true than I'm even more disgusted with Obama for his wishy washyness on this than I already was.

[eridani]

68. SEC. 113. INSURANCE RATING RULES.

In other words, no pre-existing condition my be discriminated against EXCEPT AGE

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c1... :

(a) In General- The premium rate charged for an insured qualified health benefits plan may not vary except as follows:

(1) LIMITED AGE VARIATION PERMITTED- By age (within such age categories as the Commissioner shall specify) so long as the ratio of the highest such premium to the lowest such premium does not exceed the ratio of 2 to 1.

[amandabeech]

76. When I was younger and had group insurance, I paid the same as older people.

When I objected, saying that I was healthier than them, I was told that when I was older, the younger people would pay more for me.

So, I guess that my party is willing to break the promise that was previously made to all of us older people when we were young.

Add in that I make less now than when I was younger because life sometimes has a way of knocking one off the career track for a bit.

I'll have to read this dang thing to see if my 2X more expensive "group" policy is subject to an 11% (or was that 12%) maximum of my gross.

I suppose that I will have to pay for it totally with after tax dollars, too.

[eridani]

82. 11% is totally unacceptable as well

My standard is what the mostly private Dutch system makes people pay per month--100 Euros. Canadians pay $50/month, everything else being from general revenues. The WA State single payer proposal would require $75/month per adult, with some drug and emergency room co-pays. Therefore, no individual should be paying more than $150/month, ever. I'd even take $250/month as a compromise. I refuse to support a plan that requires us to pay more than that.

[amandabeech]

84. The amounts you write about are reasonable.

Seven hundred fifty a month in after tax income was a lot more than I could have afforded, if the ins. co. would have written the policy.

[frazzled]

93. That is just for additional premiums--does not reflect taxes to pay for nat'l health

Sorry, but in the Netherlands personal income taxes are astronomical in comparison to ours:

There is a progressive tax on wages, profits, social security benefits and pensions. Thus there are tax brackets, each with its own tax rate. Mathematically, apart from discretization (whole euros both for income and for tax), the tax is a continuous, convex, piecewise linear function of income.
Part of the income from EUR 0 to EUR 17,878: 33.5 % of EUR 17,878 is EUR 5,989
Part of the income from EUR 17,878 to EUR 32,127: 42 % of EUR 14,249 is EUR 5,984
Part of the income from EUR 32,127 to EUR 54,776: 42 % of EUR 22,649 is EUR 9,512
Above that: 52 %.

So, on an income of, say, 65,000 euro, the tax would be something like 26,601 euro, or approximately 41% of your income. On an income of 100,000 euro, the tax would be aprox. 45,000 euro. That's huge in comparison to what someone making $100,000 (for comparison's sake) would pay in the U.S. Of course, they get many things beyond health care, including child care, etc.

The health premium is an additional tax on top of this.

[amandabeech]

102. Actually, when I worked and lived in NYC, my tax bite was a bit higher than 41%,

when all federal state and local taxes were counted. NYC is not the only high tax location in the U.S.

The way that Americans lower their tax burden is through mortgage interest deductions (and some others) from gross income. Also, having children helps.

Right now, we spend more per capita than any other OECD country for our health care even though not everyone has insurance, public or private.

Obama's plan is to try to spread all that health care spending more fairly.

I've been to Europe (which is where I believe you are), and you get much, much more, and it's not just child care. You get free or low-cost university studies, higher and more unemployment insurance, excellent mass transit, in some cases, a younger retirement rate and better pensions. That's just what occurs to me off the top of my head.

We get a bloated military that can be directed by idiots to attack random spots on the world.

[eridani]

130. FICA and Medicare assessments not included in US data I supplied either

I'm talking about what is reasonable as a monthly health care cost per adult, not what general services people get from their taxes.

[lumberjack_jeff]

58. In reality...

There is only one insurance exchange. If you want a specific doctor, you can check to see which of the plans within the exchange your preferred doctor takes.

The only scenario in which you can't choose to keep your doctor is if you change jobs and (s)he doesn't take the new employer's plan... but that's hardly new.

[eridani]

67. This is totally unacceptable

The Netherlands, with 100% private insurance does not tolerate this, and US single payer plans at national and state levels don't. There is no reason in hell why a a combined private/public system should either.

[tabasco]

69. The system in the Netherlands is a public/private system.

Stop lying.

[eridani]

75. Everyone except chronically ill and long term care patients must have private insurance

Money for health care is 50% from taxing employers, 5% tax subsidy and 45% from individuals. I'd say that by far the most important public aspect of the Dutch system is that it essentially dictates to private insurers what they may or may not do. Dutch adults pay 100 euros a month per adult. Co-pays and deductibles are STRICTLY OUTLAWED. There is only one benefit level, and premiums are identical regardless not only of health status, but of age.

I still favor single payer, of course, but I've decided that during this round the public vs private argument is irrelevant. When we get a final bill, I will support it or not support it based on what individuals are required to pay for premiums plus out of pocket expenses. Based on doing single payer math here, and on what the Dutch pay, individual TOTAL monthly payments should be somewhere between $100 and $150/month. Anything more than $250/month amounts to fucking over patients to profit insurers, and I'll actively work against it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

85. I'm hip! They don't put up with that shit on Star Trek neither.

But here in the real world, improvement is acceptable.

[eridani]

91. Killing only 11,000 a year instead of 22,000 a year is uncacceptable n/t

[goclark]

54. Mr. President ~ we still need the ABC - 123

explanation for Health Care.

The majority of Americans that I talk to want to be informed.
Most are saying ...what the President wants is what they want but what they don't understand is SINGLE PAYER vs the other options etc.

For most sane Americans that is enough information for now but it is NOT enough information to beat down the Clowns!

Forgive me for continuing to press this issue but I was a Kindergarten teacher ~ we had to say "Sit down 'Lil John" many ways before 'Lil J knew it was in his best interest to sit down.

..... Recall that Raising Your Voice (Screaming) and/or Hitting 'Lil J is no longer appropriate in schools.

The situation is the same because it is evident that the Police are not willing to escort these Clowns outside when they are acting like 'Lil J. They were escorting like crazy if anyone dared to upset 'Lil GW's Forums. The MSM did not complain one little bit, not one bit!

So ~ we need to have Slogans for the Options.

When they say/shout " Just Say No" we need to have quick and easy 123 responses ready for them and it is not happening as far as I can tell.

[solstice]

55. Obama sounds like he's reading a laundry list. "Outlandish" my ass. Sounds like my grandmother!

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JerseygirlCT]

71. Excellent. nt

[depakid]

72. "Drug companies have agreed to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors."

How?

I'd sure like to see the details....

Vague promises from robber barons don't inspire a lot of confidence.

[jeanpalmer]

87. What about health care for all?

How is he going to accomplish that? No mention of it.

Also, what about people who lose their insurance when they change jobs or lose jobs?

These are good reforms, but they are just insurance reforms, not health care reform. Health care reform was supposed to give 43 million uminsured access to health care, and control costs in the process. I don't see any of that discussed here.

[leftstreet]

89. "they are just insurance reforms, not health care reform"

Exactly!

[jeanpalmer]

90. These insurance reforms are common sense

and could be enacted into law tomorrow. They're not controversial. There's no cost to the government in them at all. The votes could be unanimous. So just enact them now, get them out of the way so that the real health care problem can be considered -- getting coverage for all and at what cost to whom?

[SpartanDem]

92. Health reform made simple

The essence is really quite simple: regulation of insurers, so that they can’t cherry-pick only the healthy, and subsidies, so that all Americans can afford insurance.

Everything else is about making that core work. Individual mandates are a way to prevent gaming of the system by people who don’t sign up until they’re sick; employer mandates a way to hold down the on-budget costs by preventing a rush by employers to drop insurance; the public option a way to create effective competition and hold costs down further.

But what it means for the individual will be that insurers can’t reject you, and if your income is relatively low, the government will help pay your premiums.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/health-refo...

[lewiston]

99. Truth rules

Most people agree the health care needs reform. It's the "Public Option" that causes most of the dissention. Polling indicates about half the folks think the public option will be the death noll for private insurance. Until we can convince them otherwise, reform is going to be a hard row to hoe.

[JuniperLea]

104. On Friday I said Obama needs to dispel some rumors...

As he is so often very good at... and here we have it!

Now, Obama needs to give me back my 20-year-old figure, cashmere me, skin me a peach and save the fuzz for my pillow, new Thunderbird me, and peel me a grape!

[AlinPA]

111. Great job by Obama. Too bad so very few people listen to the Weekly Address. I did a survey

at a party of about 30 people and I asked if anyone listened to Weekly Addresses (even asked if anyone listened to the Bush Weekly Addresses). Zero. (Age group about 25-70) I realize this is just one data point.

[paulk]

124. looks like "healthcare reform" is now officially renamed

"health insurance reform".

It's also now official that the insurance industry owns the Democratic Party lock, stock, and barrel. What a dissappointment the man who ran as a change agent has been. And what a dissappointment our Democratic Congress has been.

[OwnedByFerrets]

125. The problem in this speech....

If the same companies decide what IS "affordable" health insurance, we are still fucked. We dont need health insurance reform, we need health CARE reform. Where is the talk of a public option. Its completely disappeared, hasnt it? Fuck this.