An Objectively Successful Speech

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 10:18


Political speeches are designed for specific purposes. As such, their "success" should be judged by how well they achieve that purpose, not by the rhetorical and cultural implications contained within the text and body language. In the case of President Obama's joint address to Congress last night, the specific goal was to advance his push for health care reform. At least so far, all indications are that the speech was enormously successful in achieving that goal. Consider:

  1. Advanced the legislative timetable. Among the five committees with legislative purview on health care, the Senate Finance Committee is the lone holdout in passing a bill.  As recently as August 21st, the negotiators on that committee had rejecting even a September15th deadline for a framework for the bill, vowed to reduce its size to $700 billion, and pledged to keep working on a bipartisan basis. Now, committee chair Max Baucus released a framework of the bill on September 7th, put its size at $900 billion, and appears to have foregone the bipartisan negotiations. The draft of the Finance Committee bill will now be released next week, and the committee mark-up of the bill will begin the week of September 21st.

    This acceleration of the legislative process happened because of the speech. The announcement of, and build-up to, the speech put Baucus in a position where he could have been the lone hold-out when the speech took place. Not wanting to be such a negative focus of the news cycle, Baucus finally began to take proactive steps to release a legislative framework, however flawed, and push a bill through his committee. So, the speech successful moved up the legislative timetable on health care reform. That could dissolve later on, but at least for now, it makes the speech a success.

  2. Increased the popularity of health care reform. According to the CNN poll of people who watched the speech, the popularity of President Obama's health care reform plan increased as a result of the speech:

    About one in seven people who watched the speech changed their minds on Obama's health care plan. "Going into the speech, a bare majority of his audience - 53 percent - favored his proposals. Immediately after the speech, that figure rose to 67 percent," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland

    This poll has been accurately criticized for oversampling Democrats. However, while that may call the overall percentages in favor of the President's health care reform plan, it has no impact on the trendline for support. The speech increased the popularity of the President's health care reform plan--and apparently by a substantial amount. Polling later in the week will be needed for confirmation, but once again, the speech has so far been successful at achieving one of its major goals.

    Mark Blumenthal and Democracy Corps have more on post-speech polling.

  3. Put Republicans on the defensive. President Obama said in his speech that he would call out Republican members of Congress who are lying about health care reform. On that front, the speech has already resulted in a major news story about a Republican member of Congress, Joe Wilson, apologizing to the President for his outburst during the speech.  This is probably the first Republican in Congress to apologize during the health care debate at all.

    While this may appear less "objective" a success than the other two bullet points here, it is safe to say that whoever is apologizing during a news cycle is losing that news cycle. For Republicans, an apologizing Congressman is their part in the news cycle right now, instead of their rebuttal to the President's address. That is a clear win.

The goal of the speech was to advance the President's health care reform agenda. Given that is pushed the legislative timetable forward, improved the popularity of the plan, and put Republicans on the defensive, it was successful in achieving that goal. So, leaving rhetorical and ideological analysis aside for the moment, the speech was a success for its own purposes.

Finally, last night's speech was also a big success for the Congressional Progressive Caucus, too. It marked the emergence of the CPC as a major player in the health care reform debate. President Obama specifically mentioned the bloc of House Progressives threatening to oppose health care reform without a public option as the major group that needs to be negotiated with:

To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it.  The public option is only a means to that end - and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.

For a group that was last in line to meet with President Obama about anything this year, that is quite a step up in visibility and power for the Progressive Caucus. Negotiating power over the President's agenda has no longer been ceded entirely to Blue Dogs and Senate Gangs of Conservadems and Maine Republicans. Not only is that a clear victory for our efforts to increase Progressive power in Congress, but it is also a big victory for President Obama's agenda. By validating the power of the CPC in sucha  major forum, President Obama has now given himself some space to work on the left.
Chris Bowers :: An Objectively Successful Speech

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
An Objectively Successful Speech | 40 comments
It also (4.00 / 2)
further established the "trigger" as the political center. I suppose you could also define this as a "success" because this is Obama's intention, but it's a horrendous (if unsurprising) development.

A trigger is coming: anybody who can't see that isn't paying attention.

One of the problems with Obama's hands-off, consensus-fetishisizing leadership is that it's self-fulfilling, and makes mediocrity look inevitable.  

I don't disagree (4.00 / 3)
But I wanted to approach the speech from a different sort of analysis. We keep talking about whether major speeches like these are successes or not, but we rarely define the criteria that determines how they should be understood as successful.

For the purposes the Obama administration had in giving the speech, it was certainly a success.

For the purpose of having a public option in the bill, no, it wasn't that great.

But sometimes I want to talk about something besides the public option.

[ Parent ]
Talk about something other than the PO? (0.00 / 0)
And you call yourself a progressive.

No, I don't disagree with your analysis, and politically, it adds to the narrative about Obama and health care reform "coming back."


[ Parent ]
Why the insults? (4.00 / 2)
Bowers is one of the most consistent and loyal progressives in the "blogosphere" or "netroots" or what have you.  I myself am often prone to giving the administration far too much benefit of the doubt, and Bowers is always a skeptical and reasoned voice.  I see no reason to assault his progressive credentials in this manner. There are issues and perspectives outside the public option - to discuss them is not at all detrimental to progressive support for that measure.
[ Parent ]
I was joking. (4.00 / 1)
I guess it didn't come across.  
[ Parent ]
don't worry, I got i (n/t) (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Is talking about a PO some kind of litmus test? (0.00 / 0)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
It depends on the terms of the trigger (4.00 / 4)
and the size of the exchange.  If the trigger mandates drastically reduced costs, and is not reviewable by Congress, then it might be more effective than the public option, anyway.
[ Parent ]
I think we should focus on trigger details now (4.00 / 3)
Obama has clearly picked it as the goal. Given that they will clearly try a trigger compromise first and that the Budget and Finance committees are hostile to reconciliation, it's going to be hard to get an untriggered public option now. OTOH, now that Conservadems like Nelson are looking for a way out of the fight, a trigger with teeth might be pretty easy. If all the Dems are willing to vote for cloture, Snowe will capitulate in the face of the Massachusetts special election.

A trigger could be good or  bad depending on the details. Pelosi had a good approach saying that if there were a trigger, the public option would have to be beefier. Since a public option takes time to set up, we could convert it into a Medicare buy-in to adjust for trigger delays, and that would be a much better program, and well worth a triggered delay IMO.

The progressive line in the sand remains a good tactic because the progressives can demand a beefier PO in return for crossing the line on a trigger.

[ Parent ]
Yes (4.00 / 2)
And it's simple.  Pick a year in the past, and demand that premiums go down to an inflation-adjusted version of what they were then, with reasonable minimum coverage standards.  

If they don't reach those levels, than a PO automatically starts the next year.  And make it so that the trigger never expires, so they can't make it one year, and then kill the PO, and then jack premiums up the next year.

[ Parent ]
Trigger to Medicare buy-in (0.00 / 0)
Sounds good.
[ Parent ]
Thank God for some voices of reason (4.00 / 1)
The governing assumption by too many of what  call the 'Single Payer Now!' is that any movement away from purity means the mover's heart must be as dark as Satan and in league with the forces of evil, here in the form of Insurance Companies.

The current business model in the health insurance industry has evolved towards one built on predation. This doesn't mean we need to demonize the wolf pack, they are what they are. On the other hand we don't have to allow them to devour all us livestock.

One method of predator control is just to kill them all off, which in this case is 'Single Payer Now'. Well like similar solutions attempted in the wild with actual wildlife you can get some unanticipated and disruptive results.

HR3200 and HELP are designed to cage in the wolf pack and put that natural competitive nature to work under a totally new business plan. Achieving the goals of the overall plan are much easier if you have your own powerful beast in the pack, which is why the PO is important, but that doesn't mean you can't have effective wolf control without it.

You can make a Trigger Plan work. Under HR3200 profit controls are established a little indirectly through mandating specific Medical Loss Ratios for QHBPs (Qualified Health Benefit Plans) competing to be included in the exchange. The whole process is set out in Sec 116. The system is set up so that QHBPs compete based on MLRs with the bar set just low enough to meet the participation goals in each Exchange. Currently the typical MLR has slipped to 80% from had once been an industry average of 95%, that is health insurers used to pay out $95 to providers for every $100 in premiums where today that is down to $80 to providers. The difference isn't pure profit, but all administrative costs, including of course executive compensation.

So lets say for the sake of discussion that the national trigger for a PO is set at a MLR of 90%. For every area where there is enough competition to keep the competed private MLRs above 90% the trigger is not pulled. For every area where the competition can't keep the MLR above 90% the trigger pulls and the PO is offered.

Under the current model profits are driven by cutting your MLR by insuring people who don't need care or denying care to people who do. Under the proposed models even if you were able to game the coverage rules of Sec 111 & 113 you get caught up by the MLR rules of 116. The solution without the PO is to try to game the mandated MLR down, while the very existence of the PO limits your ability. A properly designed Trigger can serve the same function.

But we don't get to that point in the discussion if people have just translated "trigger" to "kick the ball down the road so the insurance companies can continue to screw us over for as long as they can". A badly designed Trigger could produce that result, but it is not inevitably built into the whole trigger concepts.

[ Parent ]
Trigger must always exist (0.00 / 0)
I hadn't thought of basing the trigger on the MLR, but that is an excellent idea.  It also sounds like the MLR is very easy to calculate because it only uses externally visible numbers, leaving no real way to cook the books.

The trigger must also be continuous and checked every year.  One fear is the trigger only checks once.  Corporations could meet any number one time so such a trigger would be meaningless in the long run.

If 95% is the old number, then that should be the trigger number, perhaps with a quick ramp up of 80% the year after it is signed, then 85, 90 and 95 in four years.

[ Parent ]
Amen (0.00 / 0)
Dennis Kucinich has it right this time: we're going to pay the wrong people, just as we always do. Nothing which the President has said or done can be construed as a serious attempt to address the piratical nature of our corporations, or to erect a barrier to their continued domination of the government.

Simply put, the government which the New Deal established, one which acts as a defense against the worst excesses of plutocracy, is now wholly owned by plutocrats, and no matter what's at issue, serves them first. As far as any reasonable person can tell, this is fine with President Obama. Doing what he ought to do is risky, and in the short run at least, won't make him look any more presidential than he looks now. He's already black; what's in it for him if he turns himself into a DFH as well?

[ Parent ]
Re: Piratical Corporations (0.00 / 0)
Nothing which the President has said or done can be construed as a serious attempt to address the piratical nature of our corporations, or to erect a barrier to their continued domination of the government.

Nor will he EVER utter such heresy.

He's a (father-lost) man, an ambitious "striver," consumed with the need for approval. He's struggled mightily his whole life to achieve this position INSIDE the corpoRat kleptocracy. What makes anyone think he'd nip the hands that curried him?

Van Jones is the fella the hopey/changey folks hoped they were electing when the voted for Obama.

Jones is also a 'community organizer.' The difference was that Jones' organizations kept an eye on racist, vicious, brutal cops, and got in the grill of "the Man." He proposed  and organized businesses to supply REAL jobs and careers for the un- and under-employed.

[ Parent ]
Not only that he ran as a candidate from a main$tream party (0.00 / 0)
Both subsidiaries of USA, Inc.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Hearing your own preconceptions (4.00 / 1)
My take on the speech is that the House will be able to craft a bill with a PO and all the cost protections built into Secs 111-116 in the bill. The fear that Obama would simply reject the PO outright has been allayed. So we can expect the final shape of the House Bill to look very much like the original joint Tri-Committee Bill. HR3200, the AAHCA is a very strong bill and if implemented as is would severely limit the piratical and predatory business practices of the Health Insurance companies. Dingell and his colleagues have not been working this issue for literally decades simply with the intent of selling us out to insurance companies because Rahm says so. Bucking Obama directly would have been difficult, instead Obama greenlighted their efforts and in doing so gave an explicit shout out to Dingell, who inherited the Universal Coverage Bill his Dad introduced in 1943 when he took over the seat in 1955 and has introduced it every year since then. In the latter decades this cause was joined by Kennedy with the result of the bill now known as Kennedy-Dingell.

So by Obama calling out Kennedy and Dingell specifically he allowed the starting point to at least include their viewpoint. And given that both the HELP Bill and HR3200 are ALREADY huge compromises away from Kennedy-Dingell gave implicit endorsement to them.

So I don't think Kucinich has it right here. Obama gave a blessing point towards a discussion that will start with HR3200 coming in some form from the House and HELP having a role in the Senate. This is a long way from where we were in late July when everyone assumed that Baucus's power move would be allowed to stand and that everything started from the Finance Bill. Obama quietly but firmly told Baucus to cut the crap and get moving and Baucus has backed down. People who have seemingly discounted the very existence of HR3200 and HELP believing that Obama would just sell them out heard the speech they expected. I heard the endorsement of an approach that many had written off for dead a week ago.

Calling out Dingell and Kennedy in the way he did sent out a dog-whistle that was heard by everyone in the room. You could see it in their faces. Cantor and Boehner spent most of the speech sitting there like whipped dogs knowing that Obama just threw his weight to the other side and that some bill called Kennedy-Dingell will come out of this process. It may not look exactly like previous iterations of Kennedy-Dingell, which were Single Payer Medicare for All, but it is not going to be the Insurance Company Gift Basket Act of 2009 that the doom and gloomers suggest.

[ Parent ]
Well, that's your take (0.00 / 0)
My own preconceptions? Well, they're not based on nothing, these preconceptions. They're based on the performance of the Democratic Party nurturers of the status quo for the past 15 years, if not the past 40. They're also based on Obama's actions to date on a whole range of issues.

If you're right, we'll know soon enough. In the meantime, pardon me if I think of you as the tooth fairy. Mind you, if you do turn out to be right, I've made a note of this exchange, and will be happy to apologize publicly right here in front of God and everybody.

[ Parent ]
Nurturers (4.00 / 1)
Do you include Kennedy, Dingell and the entire House Progressive Caucus in that?

I never jumped on the Obama band-wagon. I saw his initial economic team of Goolsbee, Liebman, and Cutler and went "oh-oh".  Nor was I blind to the implications of installing Rahm as Chief-of-Staff or putting Larry Summers in an office a couple of doors from the Oval Office. None of that sent a signal of progressive economic change, or really radical change in any direction.

But the Democratic Party is in a position that it has not been since 1976, except this time the Old Bulls are not intent on showing the new guy who really runs the place like they did to Carter.

The DLC does not rule the Democrats today in quite the same way they did in 1992, the last time the Party had control of both houses and the White House. And since that time we have seen much of Reaganism come crashing down on Republicans after their extraordinary period of arrogant over-reach after 2001. Plus as another consequence of Bushism we have a whole new powerful campaign financing tool that allows us to run around the tight nexux that grew up around the DLC/DCCC where corporatism became the equivalent of electable.

Reaganism which was quite consciously a repudiation of the Great Society and the New Deal put this country on the wrong track for close to thirty years, and that locomotive still has some steam in it. But I see strong signs that it is slowing down and maybe with Health Care going to turn around and start moving back in the direction FDR put it in 1932.

Reagan set out to destroy this country's faith in government, and his followers set out on an even more insidious campaign to not only rig the game everywhere they could, but to get the chumps to accept that the game is rigged. I am not saying that we all have to be Pollyanna, just to recognize that the bad guys want you to be hopeless and cynical, it is a huge tool in their working tool box. 'Why bother?' being their best friend.

If thinking that New Deal 2.0 is an achievable project makes me the Tooth Fairy all I can say is "Here's a quarter"

[ Parent ]
You can't buy anything with a quarter these days -- not even silence (0.00 / 0)
It's an eloquent defense you're making, and if I didn't know what I know about the forces involved, which aren't anywhere near as benign as you seem to be claiming, I might consider it entirely plausible. You've also read the bill, which in a manner of speaking, makes you a tooth fairy with some actual teeth. :-) Maybe President Obama does care enough about health care to send us the very best. If so, it would be shockingly out of character for him, at least as I understand his character.

So, until we see what he actually signs, I'll continue to believe that talk is cheap, and that the health care and insurance industries are aware of it. I'll also continue to believe that the President's bark, while more eloquent than his bite, is less effective, especially when all of Washington except the sentimentalists have their fingers in their ears.

[ Parent ]
Accurate summary (4.00 / 2)
But I'm going to bitch about him floating the mandates-with-no-public-option plan until my goddamn insurance payments go down.
Well put (4.00 / 3)
Last night's speech was a strategic advance in the health care reform debate. True, progressives did not get assurances that the end product of this process is going to be exactly what we want. But it made progressive positions, on the public option and other issues, central to the debate as no other speech has done. Of course, we have to continue the fight. Anyone expecting to declare victory last night is naive.  
No (4.00 / 1)
Last night's speech, if anything, was a strategic advance in the Obama administration getting a bill so that it can call it reform (regardless of what's in it and Obama signaled last night that he'd pretty much sign onto anything) and claim victory.

An advance in the healthcare reform debate would be explaining not only the viciousness of the insurance companies but then arguing strongly for a plan that addresses that problem, not setting out the problem and then arguing that the market always knows best and that insurance companies need to make profits. (And I'm not even going to go into his elevation of the vicious Hyde amendment into sacred policy or his embrace of the conscience clause.)

It's like it's been so long since a President spoke like a progressive leader that whatever thin gruel we get served (hey, he only kicked us in the teeth a couple of times and he had to do that politically!), we're grateful for it.  He mentioned progressives!  Nevermind, he did so by telling them they were wrong and triangulating against them.  He mentioned them!

Meanwhile, the banks keep getting their trillions (with no greater regulation) and now so will the insurance companies (with no real cost controls, but don't worry it will simply go directly from your pockets to the insurers, there won't be a dreaded tax increase, so it's all good!).

But, I do agree with Chris that it was a short-term political victory for Obama.  He's going to get his bump.  And now he's going to use it to roll the progressive caucus and get his bill.

Whether or not that's good for him politically in the long-term, we'll see.  I doubt making a family of four making $66,000 a year pay $20,000 a year in insurance premiums is going to win him or the Dems any fans.  But Obama seems to think otherwise.  Who knows, maybe he's right.

[ Parent ]
"The banks keep getting their trillions"… (0.00 / 0)
...for the same reasons that the insurance companies keep getting their trillions, and, say, oil companies do same: They employ a lot of voters, all of whom have healthcare, btw. What we're up against is entrenchment, which breeds fear of change. Isn't the word already out on the viciousness of insurance companies? Seems to me that just about everyone is talking about how insurance companies drop sick folks and deny ill people with pre-existing conditions. The only thing that really moves many of those voters who already have healthcare is the fact that they might end up paying even more than they do now if the current system (or non-system) is left alone.

As much as I hate to say it, this process is doomed to be incremental, because one thing we can be absolutely certain Obama won't do is act like Bush and just ride roughshod over anything he doesn't agree with. This speech helped re-calibrate the terms of the healthcare debate, most notably by calling the loony obstructionists just that--and even inspiring one of them to show his ass during the speech. What needs to happen now is that the electorate has to stay vocal to assure that progressives don't fold.  

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams

[ Parent ]
"market always knows best" (0.00 / 0)
Where did he say that? And what about the very painful anecdotes he included about people who had been denied health care insurance and then died because of it?
I can somewhat agree with you about Obama's need to always view progress through the lens of his amelioration of factions, but you'd make a better argument if you would stick to what he actually said.
[ Parent ]
Where did this number come from? (0.00 / 0)
I doubt making a family of four making $66,000 a year pay $20,000 a year in insurance premiums is going to win him or the Dems any fans.

I see it everywhere but I don't see how it is derived. Under the HR3200 Bill premiums for a family at 300% of the FPL, which seems to be the number suggested here are fixed at 9% of family income (Sec 243 p. 137) which puts the premium for that family at $6000. There is some cost sharing on top of that but there are also Cost Sharing Affordability Credits set out in Sec 244 that would reduce that burden as well. This 'ballpark' figure seems to overstate actual out of pocket costs to this family at maybe 40%. And the subsidies get much better as you move down the income ladder.

Each plan out there has a different subsidy table but I don't even think the Baucus version would get some body up the 30% or more on income even for famililes making over the national median (as this one does).

If someone could point me to the source of this calculation I would appreciate it, because it seems to have established itself as the 'typical' number when it is nothing of the sort.

[ Parent ]
question (0.00 / 0)
Did he give away "tort reform" for nothing or was that already in these committee bills? Why give Republicans something for nothing. Since they're all voting no you give them nothing. Then, if you really want a 60th Senate vote, you say: "No Olympia, we're not doing the trigger thing. How about some tort reform?"
It was given away years ago (4.00 / 1)
There's not much left to reform in torts. Obama can slap on a tough-sounding bill with all kinds of review requirements and judgement caps and it won't make much difference because the hurdles are already pretty extreme. It's not a meaningful negotiation giveaway, but it will mess up the Republican posturing by making them look bad either for opposing their beloved tort reform once it's included in the bill, or by demanding further "reforms" which will be very unsavory to the public.
[ Parent ]
And in the speech, he didn't even do that (0.00 / 0)
he just announced that thee would be a commission to study the problem.
[ Parent ]
There is plenty left to give away on torts (0.00 / 0)
although I agree that a great deal of damage has already been done.  Business interests certainly think so - they have not let up in their efforts to weaken the ability of plaintiffs to bring successful suits.

Also, it won't make Republicans look bad - they posture like this all the time and they generally don't get called on it.  No issue can make that happen if Democrats aren't willing to make it happen - and if they do, it probably won't be by using conservative myths.

Who are the best keepers of the people's liberties? The people themselves. The sacred trust can be no where so safe as in the hands most interested in preserving it.
James Madison

[ Parent ]
compliments to DKos (4.00 / 1)
Obama's offer to back an effort to limit malpractice verdicts against physicians may have been devised as a carrot to attract Republicans to his side, and it could also attract support from another key constituency, says William O'Neill, dean of clinical affairs at the University of Miami's Miller School of Medicine. "It could make doctors stand up and take notice," he said. "If the administration could get physicians enthused, then they would enthuse their patients."

[ Parent ]
To my president (4.00 / 1)
"To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it."

This is a blatant lie.  For decades, the driving idea behind reform is universal, high-quality healthcare.  The administration may not want to pursue this - and the entire Congress, including the Progressive bloc is not pursuing this - and that's fine.  But don't tell me something that's just not true in attempting to reposition the centre of the debate to somewhere further to the right than it is anywhere else.

Last night reinforced the public awareness of the malignant Right. (0.00 / 0)
And should convince the rest of us to band together to defeat them outright.

These people are consumed with hate.

I agree. It was successful (0.00 / 0)
on several fronts. Even from just the policy perspective it was a success. After years and decades of Democrats always backing down and compromising beyond their earlier three or four rounds of compromising with Republicans that don't compromise at all Obama held the same ground he has held for quite some time now. He didn't push the Public Option any further forward than he has in the past but he also didn't back it down and inch. He isn't and hasn't been where I want him but he hasn't backed up any further either and didn't last that. That alone is a small victory.

Also, I would add the very strong and clear language he used to call out the lies and deceptions of the insurance industry and their bought and paid for republican (and democratic) congressmen. He called them liars "plain and simple" and said we are not going to let you stop us, we are not going to tolerate that manure and we are going to call you out if you persist.

When was the last time you heard a Democratic Leader talk like that? When was the last time a Democratic Leader called the Republicans liars to their faces on national television? After years of milquetoast Tom Daschle and Harry Reid that was a breath of much needed fresh air. It was far stronger then I expected out of the always conciliatory and respectful Barack Obama.

And that makes it a huge success for strong Democratic Leadership.

I didn't hear a single word that would have caused (0.00 / 0)
any executive Health Insurance Parasite a moment's anxiety about lost revenues/profits.

I did hear typical Bushevik bullshit about 'tort-reform,' though, which would have gladdened even the blackest-hearted HIP 'adjustor.'

And no need to worry about any pesky competition from non-profits.

Obama will sign ANY piece-of-shit that makes it as far as his desk, and the signing will be attended with such pomp and ceremony, such righteous rejoicing, that you'll be tempted to believe the Second Coming is in view...

Because you haven't read Sec 116 (0.00 / 0)
By effectively endorsing HR3200 and HELP as starting points Obama implicitly endorsed the profit controls in them. Sec 116 imposes direct profit controls on insurance companies without ever using the word 'profit' or 'control'. Sec 113 imposes somewhat less direct controls but still important ones.

If anything Obama is smart not to draw too much attention to these provisions which can be spun in a way that makes them sound like a Commie takeover. But they are there.

And given that some of the biggest health insurers out there are already official set up as non-profits I am not sure what your third point even means.

[ Parent ]
Kudos to Bowers (0.00 / 0)
I really appreciate your careful, clinical style of analyzing texts and scenarios.  Rock on.
For progressives, what's not to love? (0.00 / 0)
DLC "progressives," that is.

Mandates -- the "bonanza" for the industry -- yay! Exchanges as favored by industry giants -- hurrah! Lying about single-payer -- whoopee! Throwing women's rights under the bus -- now yer talkin'! Trigger-palooza -- yippee! Identifying healthcare costs as THE spending-side deficit creator, giving a pass to war spending, handouts to Wall Street and other vast corporate welfare schemes -- viva DLC "progressivism"!

The industry certainly got their money's worth from the single largest recipient of their bribes -- uh, I mean, "campaign contributions."

Nice snark. (0.00 / 0)
Now read the bill.

This bill is very family and women friendly. Abortions will be covered as they are now, by officially paying for them out of the cost-sharing portion. And the essential benefits packages mandates that the following be fully covered:

SEC 122 (8) Preventive services, including those services recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services and those vaccines recommended for use by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

(9) Maternity care.

(10) Well baby and well child care and oral health, vision, and hearing services, equipment, and supplies at least for children under 21 years of age.

(c) REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO COST-SHARING AND MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE.-

(1) NO COST-SHARING FOR PREVENTIVE SERVICES.-There shall be no cost-sharing under the essential benefits package for preventive items and services (as specified under the benefit standards), including well baby and well child care.

Meaning that except in the case of accidents kid pretty much fly free.

If you take all the provisions of these bills in terms of covered services and cost controls you will find a very progressive bill and not the giveaway that everyone is portraying it to be.

Do you people really believe that Kennedy and Dingell just conspired to sell you out here? Or that Rahm really rules the world?  I mean if you are not cynical about the overall process you have have sleep walking the last thirty years but come on.

[ Parent ]
I must admit... (0.00 / 0)
...to only rarely having the time and the inclination to pore over 1000-plus pages of DLC- and industry-favored crap. Luckily, though, you apparently do have such time and inclination.

"This bill is very family and women friendly. Abortions will be covered as they are now, by officially paying for them out of the cost-sharing portion."

So...you support the status quo Hyde-amendment-type restrictions on abortion funding? Do you support passing a bill without R support? If not -- if you're one of those Obama buy-partisanship fans -- I suppose that would explain supporting the status quo on abortion restrictions.

I notice you didn't address any of my other points -- for-profiteer industry support of Obama's plan; massive subsidies to those that created the "crisis" (just as in the Wall St bailouts); lying about single-payer; identifying healthcare as "THE deficit" ignoring wars, bailouts and other corporate welfare, etc; or identifying Obama as the largest single recipient of industry cash.

[ Parent ]
An Objectively Successful Speech | 40 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox