Obama's speach

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jordan Moeny on July 23, 2009 at 5:13pm

I didn't hear the speech yesterday, so I may not have the latest version of the story. Could you please either explain the content thoroughly or direct me to a reliable website that will do so? (I can find a few places where I can hear the speech, but my speakers are temperamental, so I'd rather not.) Until then, I'm going off of prior knowledge and what I've gathered here.

1. I don't know that the parents will be laid off; I'm simply saying that this is an example and an increasingly common situation. You're assuming that the injury will be blown off. It works both ways because whether or not the bill passes, there is a situation in which the child goes untreated.

2. I can't really respond to this without a good understanding of the bill, but I would assume that there won't be a bureaucrat hovering over each individual case and that you would be able to make your own decisions much like you would be able to under any insurance policy you might have now. The government won't force you to do anything.

3. I do agree, in fact, that Obama might be going a little fast, but this has been on the back burner for so long that maybe haste is necessary. I trust that our system of checks and balances will keep something extremely detrimental from going through and that Obama has some of the best people in the nation working with him on this to get things right.

I don't know what my health care plan would be. I think it would require research into the systems being proposed and especially the systems being used in other nations for me to come up with something like that. I know that's not much of an answer, but I asked you the same thing (or something very similar).

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ari Strudler on July 23, 2009 at 5:40pm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-06-15-obama-speech-tex...
Link with some of his thoughts on it..
I couldn't find all of his speech that happened on 7/22/09 on text..
but here is part of it (the part I watched)
That is why I’ve said that even as we rescue this economy from a full-blown crisis, we must rebuild it stronger than before. And health insurance reform is central to that effort. …

This is not just about the 47 million Americans who have no health insurance. Reform is about every American who has ever feared that they may lose their coverage if they become too sick, or lose their job, or change their job. It’s about every small business that has been forced to lay off employees or cut back on their coverage because it became too expensive. And it’s about the fact that the biggest driving force behind our federal deficit is the skyrocketing cost of Medicare and Medicaid. …

So let me be clear: if we do not control these costs, we will not be able to control our deficit. If we do not reform health care, your premiums and out-of-pocket costs will continue to skyrocket. If we do not act, 14,000 Americans will continue to lose their health insurance every single day. These are the consequences of inaction. These are the stakes of the debate we’re having right now. …

I realize that with all the charges and criticisms being thrown around in Washington, many Americans may be wondering, “What’s in this for me? How does my family stand to benefit from health insurance reform?” (Please see our footnote.)

Tonight I want to answer those questions. Because even though Congress is still working through a few key issues, we already have agreement on the following areas:

If you already have health insurance, the reform we’re proposing will provide you with more security and more stability. It will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your insurance if you’re happy with it. It will prevent insurance companies from dropping your coverage if you get too sick. It will give you the security of knowing that if you lose your job, move, or change your job, you will still be able to have coverage. It will limit the amount your insurance company can force you to pay for your medical costs out of your own pocket. And it will cover preventive care like check-ups and mammograms that save lives and money.

If you don’t have health insurance, or are a small business looking to cover your employees, you’ll be able to choose a quality, affordable health plan through a health insurance exchange – a marketplace that promotes choice and competition Finally, no insurance company will be allowed to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition.

I have also pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade – and I mean it.

I understand how easy it is for this town to become consumed in the game of politics – to turn every issue into running tally of who’s up and who’s down. I’ve heard that one Republican strategist told his party that even though they may want to compromise, it’s better politics to “go for the kill.” Another Republican senator said that defeating health reform is about “breaking” me.

So let me be clear: This isn’t about me. I have great health insurance, and so does every Member of Congress. This debate is about the letters I read when I sit in the Oval Office every day, and the stories I hear at town hall meetings…This debate is not a game for these Americans, and they cannot afford to wait for reform any longer. They are counting on us to get this done. They are looking to us for leadership. And we must not let them down. We will pass reform that lowers cost, promotes choice, and provides coverage that every American can count on. And we will do it this year.


It is from the NY times. pretty reliable. :)
no problem helping out i know how speakers can be

Jordan Moeny said:

I didn't hear the speech yesterday, so I may not have the latest version of the story. Could you please either explain the content thoroughly or direct me to a reliable website that will do so? (I can find a few places where I can hear the speech, but my speakers are temperamental, so I'd rather not.) Until then, I'm going off of prior knowledge and what I've gathered here.

1. I don't know that the parents will be laid off; I'm simply saying that this is an example and an increasingly common situation. You're assuming that the injury will be blown off. It works both ways because whether or not the bill passes, there is a situation in which the child goes untreated.

2. I can't really respond to this without a good understanding of the bill, but I would assume that there won't be a bureaucrat hovering over each individual case and that you would be able to make your own decisions much like you would be able to under any insurance policy you might have now. The government won't force you to do anything.

3. I do agree, in fact, that Obama might be going a little fast, but this has been on the back burner for so long that maybe haste is necessary. I trust that our system of checks and balances will keep something extremely detrimental from going through and that Obama has some of the best people in the nation working with him on this to get things right.

I don't know what my health care plan would be. I think it would require research into the systems being proposed and especially the systems being used in other nations for me to come up with something like that. I know that's not much of an answer, but I asked you the same thing (or something very similar).

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sean Hadley on July 23, 2009 at 6:25pm

Ok, sorry bad wording. I think that every 50 years a new "monarch" should be put into control. Without absolute power it would be better than beurocracy. Then we elect a new person.

Jordan Moeny said:

By "monarchy" are you talking about something with one leader or something with one leader where power is passed from parent to child? The latter is what's generally referred to as a monarchy and is, no offense meant, a fairly stupid idea. Choosing rulers based on bloodline instead of actual qualifications? No thank you. The former is properly termed a dictatorship, although I would guess that you're thinking of a benevolent dictatorship.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jordan Moeny on July 23, 2009 at 9:07pm

Sean Hadley said:

I think that every 50 years a new "monarch" should be put into control. Without absolute power it would be better than beurocracy. Then we elect a new person.

How would the power if this monarch be limited? If they serve a fifty year term, then that's not much of a power check. That's one of the things that keeps our presidents thinking about what they do: the knowledge that in a few years, they can be booted out. (Sorry that this is a little off topic...I'm just interested in Sean's ideas. If anyone objects, we can move to chat or comments or something else.)

Ari--

Thanks for the info! That clears things up quite a bit, and I think it actually provides good responses to many of the points brought up by this plan's naysayers.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by arikasnazany on January 10, 2010 at 11:21pm

hi haware you

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page