White House officials suggest the president's rhetoric shouldn't be taken literally

[masuki bance]

From the AP-

Promises, Promises: Obama's health plan claims


WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama seems to leave little room for doubt when he promises that his health care plan will let people keep the coverage they have. His vow sounds reassuring and gets applause, but no president could guarantee such a pledge.

Employers sponsor coverage for most families, and Obama's plan still leaves companies free to change their health plans in ways that workers may not like. Employers can even drop insurance altogether.

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

He didn't let up.

"If you like what you're getting, keep it," Obama said. "Nobody is forcing you to shift."

Yet the legislation the Obama administration is working on with the Democratic-controlled Congress would make major changes in how Americans pay for health care. The goal is to slow cost increases and bring in nearly 50 million uninsured, and the consequences are bound to affect how employers design benefit plans.

Americans could be headed for a frugal era in which doctors order fewer tests and procedures and insurers monitor medical decisions more closely.
...

Though the impact seems small, Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., said the budget office analysis shows the legislation "fails to deliver" on Obama's promise.

Republicans seized on the issue Friday. "Once the bill is finished, tens of millions more could also be forced to lose coverage," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Obama's opponent in last year's presidential election, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, declared: "I don't believe this is a promise the president can keep."

Neutral observers are also skeptical. Dallas Salisbury, head of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, called Obama's promise "an aspirational statement."

"If he was a king, he would deliver that, but he's not king," said Salisbury. His group is a nonpartisan information clearinghouse on health and pension benefits.

White House officials suggest the president's rhetoric shouldn't be taken literally: What Obama really means is that government isn't about to barge in and force people to change insurance.
...

The last thing Obama wants is a groundswell of opposition, driven by Americans' fears of being forced to change their insurance or losing it.

...

The coverage pledge is not Obama's promise to make, especially at this early stage, said Republican health policy expert Gail Wilensky, a former Medicare director.
...

MIT's Jonathan Gruber, a leading health economist, said Obama's promise shouldn't be taken as a sign that Americans will be able to keep indefinitely the same coverage they have now.
...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gK8UACQa5gEv1cZ-SRxXDc3XDwRwD98TT5R80

Why is this so hard?

[sandnsea]

1. So. Employers are in control of insurance now

and people are fighting single payer because they want to keep their employer coverage.

But because nobody can guarantee what an employer will do for the next 50 years...

that means OBAMA can't be taken seriously???

That is the craziest thing I've heard yet.

[lindisfarne]

3. Almost an argument FOR a public option which doesn't limit your choice of physicians.

It's a game of semantics: my current health insurance plan says I can choose anyone but if I got outside the PPO doctors, what I pay greatly increases and some things aren't even covered (and since a non-PPO physician isn't subject to their contractual rates, I'm only covered to their arbitrarily determined "reasonable & customary" charges). Is that really "choice"?

With HMOs, in many cases, you're not covered if you go outside the HMO except in rare cases where you can successfully appeal to see a specialist outside their network.

Even with Medicare: your choice is limited by the number of physicians who currently are taking new medicare patients. This actually is a reality that needs to be addressed in the public option & the Kennedy plan did by increasing the rates paid under the public option to about 10-15% higher than Medicare rates. (It's important to note that if the hassles with insurance companies decrease for physicians, current Medicare rates may in fact be adequate.)

[vaberella]

14. The article is a Public Option hit piece by using "crowding out" in fearful ways.

So the article is for RWers.

[sandnsea]

36. Well it's from Forbes

Part of a series of Forbes articles. Of course it's for rwers. Sad the OP didn't realize it.

I just think the basis of the article is hysterical, even for the right.

[WonderGrunion]

25. Employers would benefir the greatest from single payer healthcare

The removal of insurance from their expenses would be a larger savings than any tax break business has ever received.

[babylonsister]

2. Why is what so hard, a google article? Please. Let's wait and see

before we write anything off.

[lindisfarne]

4. It's an AP article that's on google, so it is getting wide distribution to print newspapers n/t

[babylonsister]

5. That explains it. Some people who write for the AP suck.

Google AP/media matters. They are like politico imo, their writers' pov is welcome, not 'the news'.

[lindisfarne]

6. Most of the mainstream media is bad. But that doesn't mean it doesn't influence the public.n/t

[glowing]

7. It just means that employers will opt out of ins for their emplyees. People

will automatically switch over to the govt option because the private ins. is cutting down on providing healthcare. The ins. co's know that a public option is death to their institutions. That is why they are fighting so hard.

[DrToast]

8. This is happening anyway

More and more companies are dropping insurance because they can't pay for it.

[glowing]

9. This is true.. Which is why that 47million uninsured number needs to

change. That number is way old, especially during these economic times. Most unemployed persons cannot afford the cobra payments. AND many companies, esp small co's, are having to choose between insurance for employees or dropping it to save jobs.

[vaberella]

10. Why is what so hard? The article is sort of correct actually. n/t

[masuki bance]

11. It's correct that Obama's rhetoric should not be taken literally? nt

[vaberella]

13. Actually. My point is that you have ZERO understanding of the article you even posted.

You do realize this article is for Right Wingers not for Progressives right. This one is for freepers who are afraid of the public option. You can do better in future if you find an article that bashes Obama's position with the public option and maybe letting it go to Republicans. This article however is for freepers.

First off you never explained your statement, "Why is this so hard?" Which makes no sense in reference to the article.

Now as to part of an excerpt you posted which you claim as the title of your post...you're are twisting the language and even the writer messing with a few things. First off, I don't know what White House officials suggest anything and the writer doesn't provide a clear listing of whom he's dealing with who said or implied what they did. If you have those quotes provide them please. If it's not Sebelius, Obama or someone in the niche then I think there will always be a little "lost in translation" in effect.

As for my statement----I stated very clearly that the article was "sort" of right. Not understanding where you're coming from in your statement and definitely finding your title baseless---I made my statement. Automatically you jump to the conclusion that I was saying the article was right based on your title. Your title isn't even the bloody title of the article----your title is your interpretation of the article which is wholly incorrect.

Actually the article states and expresses the fears of RWers that are valid. If there is a Public Option it will crowd out private health insurance and really small businesses maybe the first to force their workers onto such a system to save costs. Where is that wrong? This is also where the quote above in the statement comes in. Check out below:

"If he was a king, he would deliver that, but he's not king," said Salisbury. His group is a nonpartisan information clearinghouse on health and pension benefits.

White House officials suggest the president's rhetoric shouldn't be taken literally: What Obama really means is that government isn't about to barge in and force people to change insurance.

What the above means is that Obama can't mandate this or that. It can't mandate a small business to keep using the private insurance company. Normally the PO is to help small businesses who don't provide health care or who are struggling to provide. However, those who are not struggling or barely making ends meet could very well dump the private insurance and flood the Public Option. So the promise Obama makes in regards to "if you like you're insurance you can keep it, but I'm giving you options to switch plans"---maybe a loss in some cases for those who work for small businesses which may force their workers into the public option----having them lose the private option.

If Obama was King----he could create mandates on this or that. He would put a cap on what type of small businesses (but that's non-sensical due to economic reasons and could in effect mess up the system). All in all there will be some people who lose their private insurance for the Public Option due to the cost of the small business. It's inevitable---and it is also the whole point of crowding-out.

All the article does is point out the process of crowding-out in rather fearful terms for people who are private insurance owners through a business or small business and don't want to be part of the public option.

[masuki bance]

16. That's a long way of saying that what Obama was

quoted as saying, he can't mandate, or promise.

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

He didn't let up.

"If you like what you're getting, keep it," Obama said. "Nobody is forcing you to shift."

[vaberella]

23. So you're defending a RW article...and your not even defending it well.

Obama is not forcing you. However, small business is actually suffering quite a bit in this economic crisis. The small business probably wouldn't want to do it either, due to the fact that their subsidized.


~sigh~ Let me begin because a lot of people may not know this. Businesses that provide health care are basically subsidized to provide it. They get a pool of people in it and the government gives them massive tax breaks in response. However, sometimes the tax breaks and benefits given to them by the government still don't meet cost. It would eventually be cost effective to not provide the health care and move into the public option.

Obama is not forcing the small business do shift over, which forces the individual. Crowding-out will do that on its own. The way the system is established will also do that. It would be the small business' decision to move their people onto the public option. Not Obama. Most small businesses however can't even provide quality health care. Others that can may for their own purposes can change. Shoot, the entire economic system and the failure of it is doing that.

You'll note that as health insurance costs rose over the past few years, after the economic downturn a lot of people dropped health insurance, it was one of the first things to go. Not to mention small businesses who moved full timers to part timers---ie health insurance costs are affected. In the end, its not Obama or even a real person that forces the change---it's the economic situation of the company that is trying to meet costs. Obama has not control over it and really most businesses don't either.

What I find perplexing is now you're questioning his words when it benefits right wingers? So now his words are in question. Basically if things change for some people that will be the economic costs of it. The economy has control and is forcing the hands of issues that deal with money. People are reacting the best they can. So far Obama has done the best he can to control the economic situation but crowding-out is inevitable and Obama knows that---if you watch Health Summit 2009, he makes remarks on it specifically.

[masuki bance]

24. Shorter vaberella-

Obama's rhetoric shouldn't be taken literally: What Obama really means is that government isn't about to barge in and force people to change insurance.

[vaberella]

31. I thought that's what Obama said he'd do from the beginning.

That the government isn't forcing anyone to do anything. If they want they can have theirs. However...I'm trying to get the whole "literal" thing. Because your initial post made it out as though Obama was lying.

[laylah]

12. ...

:wtf:

[rvablue]

15. Another negative post from you. Different day...same story. n/t

[masuki bance]

17. I'd be happy to post an article that says a health care reform

bill has passed with all of the features that have been promised.

Would you be so kind as to point me to one?

[jefferson_dem]

29. Yup.

Lamer OP.

[redqueen]

18. This is a funny article.

Obama said those things, but he also said that we'd have to make huge changes and sacrifices too.

Does it really take a genius to figure out how to reconcile those two thoughts?

The shit some people will swallow whole, simply in order to get an outrage fix... I guess I shouldn't be surprised really. If the right will do it, why not the left? Still, it's sad.

[dionysus]

21. lol, the outrage junkies get their fix any way they can...

[masuki bance]

22. You agree? His words should not be taken literally? nt

[redqueen]

26. You can't be serious.

[masuki bance]

27. I am. nt

[redqueen]

28. *roffle*

[vaberella]

32. I found it the weirdest thing---it seems there's a defense of a RW talking point.

The concern is legit (since crowding out causes major instability for the short term)...but it wouldn't be Obama but economic situation which determines any number of outcome. However, it most definitely is not the government nor Obama doing anything. They are providing an avenue that may cause a slight hiccup but the ultimate choice is based on economic response.

[redqueen]

35. It's so idiotic it's something I'd expect only the... what is it now...

18%?

Anyway I'd think only bush's backers would fall for something so ridiculous. Guess I was wrong.

[vaberella]

37. Yup...remember they need to hold Obama's feet to the fire.

The ultimate theme is, he's not keeping his promises and pushing falsehoods.

[redqueen]

41. So calling him an untrustworthy liar is a way to hold is feet to the fire?

I did not know that!

[HamdenRice]

19. Thanks for providing the Republican critique of health insurance reform

Mike Enzi, Mitch McConnell, John McCain -- those are the sources you've quoted -- I'm sure they give a flying fuck and a rat's ass about improving the health care system for the peasants.

[dionysus]

20. yo einstein, you have just posted RW talking points....

:rofl:

[jefferson_dem]

30. I wonder why the OP would do that.

:shrug:

[vaberella]

34. Holding Obama's feet to the fire anyway they can is my guess. n/t

[vaberella]

33. I kept saying that. If you notice my posts. I couldn't believe it.

The article supports the RWers.

[high density]

38. AP, how is this new or special to the President's plan?

My employer forced me to change health insurance this year because they're cheap and were consolidating providers. They could also drop it next year if they felt like it. That is a fact no matter what the government serves up.

[midnight armadillo]

39. WTF WOULD I WANT TO KEEP MY INSURANCE?

It's not very good, the co-pays are sky-high, it doesn't cover needed services for our two little boys with some special needs, and I think I dropped $8,000 out of pocket last year thank to it.

Why, oh why, would I not want to kick the shit out my insurance if I can get Congress' plan via the public option?

[AtomicKitten]

40. durr