Obama's Healthcare Speech

On September 10 2009 09:41 Mystlord wrote:
Go go Republicans! You're not clapping! You're going to get flak for this later. So.. Much... Flak..

On September 10 2009 09:41 Mystlord wrote:
Go go Republicans! You're not clapping! You're going to get flak for this later. So.. Much... Flak..

On September 10 2009 09:50 TheOvermind77 wrote:
The beginning was more inspiring than now. It's onto the gritty details now...

On September 10 2009 09:48 Ecael wrote:

Yes, because Obama is speaking with a tone seeking bipartisanship.

On September 10 2009 09:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:


I'm not following... If he didn't give details people would still be confused...?

On September 10 2009 10:01 Excalibur_Z wrote:
Camille Paglia had it exactly right: http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/09/09/healthcare/

Obama is such a master speaker. He's inspiring and powerful, but it's unfortunate for the rest of us that he's not addressing very serious concerns, such as the fine details of cost, coverage, and tax increases. He's right that we can't stick with the status quo, but this bill isn't going to fix anything.

On September 10 2009 10:01 Excalibur_Z wrote:
Camille Paglia had it exactly right: http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/09/09/healthcare/

Obama is such a master speaker. He's inspiring and powerful, but it's unfortunate for the rest of us that he's not addressing very serious concerns, such as the fine details of cost, coverage, and tax increases. He's right that we can't stick with the status quo, but this bill isn't going to fix anything.

On September 10 2009 10:08 Tien wrote:



Hey my favourite republican!


How's that war on terror / Iraqi war / Weapons of mass destruction thingy doing? I thought someone a few years ago said it was working........



I'm just trolling.


I agree Obama hasn't addressed the actual high cost of medication.


Here in Canada, there is a cap on how much drug companies can charge for medications meanwhile in the United States there is no cap.

My uncle (a doctor), was telling me that the drug companies have a dominant control over the politics involving cost of medecine.



We shall see how this proceeds.

On September 10 2009 09:39 s_side wrote:
He better make a damn good impression tonight. His support, especially among independents and conservative democrats is vanishing like a squirt of piss in a hurricane.

On September 10 2009 10:18 Louder wrote:


The fact that conservative and democrats are so frequently paired together makes me T_T

On September 10 2009 10:18 Louder wrote:


The fact that conservative and democrats are so frequently paired together makes me T_T

Doesn't matter what Obama says, a huge percentage of Americans are willfully ignorant and believe in Fox News like it's the 2nd Bible. This country is far, far beyond hope of getting it's shit together, when people who can't name the Secretary of State get to decide something as important as health care policy.

On September 10 2009 10:20 BalliSLife wrote:
any transcript yet or is it still live? i'm at work so i have no idea

On September 10 2009 10:25 Pressure wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/us/politics/10obama.text.html

speech transcript

On September 10 2009 10:20 Last Romantic wrote:
and now when he's supposed to be 'giving details' they're vague and not particularly helpful.

First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.

Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most.

We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies – because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.

if you're one of the tens of millions of Americans who don't currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange – a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices.

For those individuals and small businesses who still cannot afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we will provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need.

That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance – just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.

Likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers. There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still cannot afford coverage, and 95% of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements.

On September 10 2009 09:52 Mystlord wrote:

Regardless, you know what'll happen when the Daily Show and Colbert gets these clips. You also know what will happen when the Democrats start putting out commercials...

On September 10 2009 10:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Wow Joe Wilson's website is down.

On September 10 2009 10:40 Grommit wrote:
This thread will not be any fun until Aegraen shows up.

Aegraen was just temp banned for 30 days by Manifesto7.

That account was created on 2009-05-07 23:29:31 and had 1188 posts.

Reason: Perhaps you think that people on a VIDEO GAME FORUM are not well rounded enough to talk about things like body building. Perhaps you and your condescending attitude should find a place more suited to your interests.

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=101522&currentpage=last

On September 10 2009 10:12 Mystlord wrote:

Pretty much. I like this speech, but it fails to address the fundamental problems of our heatlh care system. It's like putting a bigger and bigger band-aid over a slowly growing wound.

On September 10 2009 10:46 ultramagnetics wrote:
Anyone have a link to other parts of the video. All I can find on youtube/googlevideo is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkNK_ce19V8

..but this is only the first part... a live stream doesn't help if you missed the beginning already.

On September 10 2009 10:20 Last Romantic wrote:
Haha I love how Obama says 'we need to pass this' for about 3, 4 months without giving any details

and now when he's supposed to be 'giving details' they're vague and not particularly helpful.

I find Obama a charismatic and intelligent individual, but this whole healthcare thing is a morass of idiocy.

On September 10 2009 10:51 s_side wrote:


My main issue with Obama is the scare tactics. The way he pushed the "stimulus" bill through was waaaaaaay too reminiscent of the Bush adminstration's actions surrounding the Patriot Act. It was a disgusting display of fear-mongering and, ironically (considering Obama sold himself as a champion of transparency), opacity.

The same thing is happening with the craze surrounding health care reform. Obama and his cohorts in congress are decrying Republican nonsense such as "death panels" (which I believe they should), but they are just as guilty of using fear and, as Democratic politicians have for a few decades now, condescension to push their agenda.

On September 10 2009 10:51 s_side wrote:


My main issue with Obama is the scare tactics. The way he pushed the "stimulus" bill through was waaaaaaay too reminiscent of the Bush adminstration's actions surrounding the Patriot Act. It was a disgusting display of fear-mongering and, ironically (considering Obama sold himself as a champion of transparency), opacity.

The same thing is happening with the craze surrounding health care reform. Obama and his cohorts in congress are decrying Republican nonsense such as "death panels" (which I believe they should), but they are just as guilty of using fear and, as Democratic politicians have for a few decades now, condescension to push their agenda.

On September 10 2009 10:54 TeCh)PsylO wrote:


Didn't Bush pass the stimulus bill? Maybe that's why it is reminiscent of Bush. To be fair, both the credit crisis and the health care industry are/were very serious and need serious attention. As Obama said, we can't keep pushing solutions back term after term because it is politically comfortable.

On September 10 2009 10:48 TeCh)PsylO wrote:



The people in the room know the fundamental problems, and the details. It seems he was really speaking to the people at home, attempting to change the tone of the public conversation to put more pressure on "moderates". The more he talks about common goals and American ideals, the harder it is for right-wing spokesman like Palin and Limbaugh to bash his platform. That has really been the problem with this debate, it is being manipulated by unintelligent ideologues. Obama needs to marginalize these people (he certainly has the political skill to do so), and focus on the consequences of not taking any action. Republicans are significantly more politically savvy in their ability to shape the public debate, but the reality of our health care system is dire enough to speak for itself. Anyone who has dealt with medical issues, and has at least looked at an itemized bill will not argue against health care reform.

On September 10 2009 10:54 TeCh)PsylO wrote:


Didn't Bush pass the stimulus bill? Maybe that's why it is reminiscent of Bush. To be fair, both the credit crisis and the health care industry are/were very serious and need serious attention. As Obama said, we can't keep pushing solutions back term after term because it is politically comfortable.

On September 10 2009 11:02 s_side wrote:


The omnibus appropriations package?? Signed into law on March 11, 2009?? Don't be a dunce.

Jesus Christ, our country really is fucked.

On September 10 2009 11:02 Mystlord wrote:

If they know the fundamental problems, why aren't they dealing with them? It will probably take longer than Obama's current term to fix the underlying problems of our health care system. At the very least, Medicare needs to be completely reworked because this incentives system isn't working. By our current health care system, tests = money for doctors. Even if they're junk tests. If you ask me, we're just running a moral hazard economy system for health care. It's not in the doctors' best interests to do an x-ray to confirm a diagnosis if he can get more money for an MRI. This also leads to waste, which leads to rising costs. This bill isn't addressing these problems, it's just expanding coverage, which isn't exactly a bad thing, but you can't talk about the economy (as Obama did in the beginning of the speech), without trying to cut down on COSTS not on PRICES.

On September 10 2009 11:06 motbob wrote:

OK, you're saying that our country is fucked because he confused the bailout with the stimulus bill? Fuck you. What a condescending post.

This is par for the course for Obama. S-class presentation with C-level content and substance.

On September 10 2009 11:02 s_side wrote:


The omnibus appropriations package?? Signed into law on March 11, 2009?? Don't be a dunce.

Jesus Christ, our country really is fucked.

On September 10 2009 11:28 NExUS1g wrote:
If it saves live, saves money and helps people be healthier, awesome. What's wrong with it?

On September 10 2009 10:38 GoShox wrote:
Video of the "liar" part: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0PqBiNUyqU

EXTREMELY pitiful for any Republican (or anyone in politics for that matter) to be that immature. Apparently it was Joe Wilson from South Carolina... with the Republicans already down as they are now, I don't know why they resort to silly antics like this.

On September 10 2009 11:33 motbob wrote:
I don't see how this is C-level content. He explained how the bill will help consumers of health insurance. He explained how the bill would decrease costs. I gotta refer you back to my post at the bottom of page 2 that has a lot of quotes about his specific plan.

Also I know a lot of people don't care about this, but he gave a shoutout to the progressives who had been freaking out about his position on the public option. He basically told everyone to calm the fuck down and that the public option isn't that big of a deal, even though he wants it in the bill.

On September 10 2009 11:02 Mystlord wrote:

If they know the fundamental problems, why aren't they dealing with them? It will probably take longer than Obama's current term to fix the underlying problems of our health care system. At the very least, Medicare needs to be completely reworked because this incentives system isn't working. By our current health care system, tests = money for doctors. Even if they're junk tests. If you ask me, we're just running a moral hazard economy system for health care. It's not in the doctors' best interests to do an x-ray to confirm a diagnosis if he can get more money for an MRI. This also leads to waste, which leads to rising costs. This bill isn't addressing these problems, it's just expanding coverage, which isn't exactly a bad thing, but you can't talk about the economy (as Obama did in the beginning of the speech), without trying to cut down on COSTS not on PRICES.

On September 10 2009 11:38 Ideas wrote:


rofl omfg

how the hell are the republicans a real fucking political party?

On September 10 2009 10:33 motbob wrote:








That's from the first half of the speech. WTF LR

On September 10 2009 11:02 s_side wrote:


The omnibus appropriations package?? Signed into law on March 11, 2009?? Don't be a dunce.

Jesus Christ, our country really is fucked.

On September 10 2009 11:41 Mystlord wrote:

And I have to refer you back to my earlier post. While this is a nice bill, it's only expanding coverage and not addressing the true costs of heatlh care. Even though he says that this is going to decrease costs, heatlh care always increases no matter what you do. Not only that, but the growth increases with every passing year. According to the White House, the current average annual growth in health care costs is 6.1%. We're coming to the point when the previous baby boom generation is hitting retirement age. Cost can only increase at this point.

On September 10 2009 11:42 ghostWriter wrote:


It's not just for doctors gaining money. It's also due to the insurance practices in this country. If anything goes wrong, people have their lawyers on speeddial. Insurance costs for doctors from "medical malpractice" are no joke and people are always looking towards making an easy buck. Not only does this make the doctors' jobs harder, it leads to waste, as you pointed out.

On September 10 2009 11:48 motbob wrote:

There is some cost-cutting inherent in expanding coverage. For example, people's emergency room visits will now by covered by insurance companies and not the hospital for people who gain insurance under this plan.

On September 10 2009 12:06 Alizee- wrote:
Ok I'm roarin' in on this one and I call bullshit. You hear the oh so charismatic speaking from Obama about what the bill will and won't do, yet at the end of the day it doesn't matter what he can convince people of what it says, but rather their own reading of the bill itself. There's always the bullshit of its too long to read or they're not qualified to read all of it and yet its been damn near a half a year. They haven't done anything significant as of late to curb job loss(if they ever did) and quite frankly all they wanna do is put themselves in a position for reelection.

"Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. " Really? So by not spending tax payer dollars our deficit goes up? Its like a whole new level of political talk that is simply on another plane of existence our mere mortal minds cannot comprehend.

On September 10 2009 12:11 motbob wrote:

There's no bill yet, dude. There's ~5 different drafts being written up in Congress, but nothing released by the White House. We can't READ THE BILL OMG if there is no bill.

The versions of the bill that have come from the House are deficit neutral. I think the Senate versions are too.

On September 10 2009 12:17 Alizee- wrote:


If they're deficit neutral that means more taxation on the people. More taxes at a time when people are having trouble as is paying taxes. Oh...those middle class taxes that were never supposed to come, interesting. And in any light it goes to show how his speaking as awe inspiring as it is doesn't always make sense, the proposals have no deficit, yet not acting does create the deficit? He makes dog shit seem like filet mignon.

On September 10 2009 12:17 Alizee- wrote:


If they're deficit neutral that means more taxation on the people. More taxes at a time when people are having trouble as is paying taxes. Oh...those middle class taxes that were never supposed to come, interesting. And in any light it goes to show how his speaking as awe inspiring as it is doesn't always make sense, the proposals have no deficit, yet not acting does create the deficit? He makes dog shit seem like filet mignon.

On September 10 2009 12:21 ghostWriter wrote:


Don't act like you've never seen this before, politicians always claim that they won't raise taxes to get votes. Who would run for office by saying that they will raise taxes? Only idiots like Bush would lower taxes on the wealthiest while building up a deficit due to 2 wars. We will be spending more either way, health care costs rise rapidly every year, taking up a bigger chunk of our income anyway. We might as well spend our money improving the system. It will cost more in the short run for sure, but will be cheaper and better for every citizen in the long run. Also, you don't necessarily have to tax more, you can simply print more money, which would be a sort of implicit taxation, but its impact would be more subtle and less abrupt.

On September 10 2009 10:38 GoShox wrote:
Video of the "liar" part: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0PqBiNUyqU

EXTREMELY pitiful for any Republican (or anyone in politics for that matter) to be that immature. Apparently it was Joe Wilson from South Carolina... with the Republicans already down as they are now, I don't know why they resort to silly antics like this.

On September 10 2009 12:06 Alizee- wrote:
Like Mr Canadian earlier in the thread, you guys have a cap on the cost of your medications. Try start small, taking baby steps, instead we have to have some convoluted $900 billion dollar package that's gonna just miraculously solve everything in one fell swoop. Its bullshit, the only thing that's certain is the assholes will try to keep their jobs. It doesn't matter what the healthcare system is like if everyone keeps losing jobs.

On September 10 2009 12:22 motbob wrote:

There are no middle class taxes unless you count >$250,000 as middle class. Also I have no problem raising taxes on the rich since tax rates for the rich are at very, very low levels. I'd like to see those levels go back to pre-Bush.

On September 10 2009 12:29 Mortality wrote:
All of this is idiotic.


Any idiot should realize that a healthcare system, whether public or private, can only ever be as good as the policy that defines it. And the policy etched out in the current bill is an absolute piece of shit.

Obama's a great speaker, I'll give him that much, but that's all his "reform" has going for it. If you look at the actual bill and actually READ THE FUCKING DOCUMENT, then I think it's quite clear that this isn't the system that everyone is hyping it up to be. I just wish the COCKSUCKING MEDIA would get serious about addressing the real criticisms, rather than harping about the fundamental ideological differences between public and private healthcare systems.

On September 10 2009 12:27 Mystlord wrote:

Is there even a middle class in America? Regardless, every bracket has a tax rate.

On September 10 2009 11:41 Mystlord wrote:

And I have to refer you back to my earlier post. While this is a nice bill, it's only expanding coverage and not addressing the true costs of heatlh care. Even though he says that this is going to decrease costs, heatlh care always increases no matter what you do. Not only that, but the growth increases with every passing year. According to the White House, the current average annual growth in health care costs is 6.1%. We're coming to the point when the previous baby boom generation is hitting retirement age. Cost can only increase at this point.

On September 10 2009 12:26 HuskyTheHusky wrote:


Wow... actually hearing that part for the first time just now.

That is seriously so immature. This just shows the kind of tactics and behavior they use when people arent watching.

Pitiful.

On September 10 2009 12:31 Orbifold wrote:


I think that the US desperately needs a couple more tax brackets. Under Reagan the top marginal rate was 50%, and under Eisenhower (my 2nd favorite president) a whooping 90%.

On September 10 2009 12:21 ghostWriter wrote:


Don't act like you've never seen this before, politicians always claim that they won't raise taxes to get votes. Who would run for office by saying that they will raise taxes? Only idiots like Bush would lower taxes on the wealthiest while building up a deficit due to 2 wars. We will be spending more either way, health care costs rise rapidly every year, taking up a bigger chunk of our income anyway. We might as well spend our money improving the system. It will cost more in the short run for sure, but will be cheaper and better for every citizen in the long run. Also, you don't necessarily have to tax more, you can simply print more money, which would be a sort of implicit taxation, but its impact would be more subtle and less abrupt.

On September 10 2009 12:31 NExUS1g wrote:


The question is, if less people are forced to use our health care system as "sick care" because of the out-of-pocket costs, limitations, etc. won't we save money on people who would otherwise needlessly end up in the hospital?

On September 10 2009 12:31 Orbifold wrote:


I think that the US desperately needs a couple more tax brackets. Under Reagan the top marginal rate was 50%, and under Eisenhower (my 2nd favorite president) a whooping 90%.

On September 10 2009 12:41 Mystlord wrote:

What? I don't exactly get what you're saying... Maybe I'm just tired. Unless you mean that rising health care costs will cause people to rely less on health care? If that's what you're saying, it doesn't work because the consumer's out-of-pocket costs are generally kept stable. Although health care might increase as a percentage of our GDP, the same growth doesn't aply to out-of-pocket costs.

In addition, what you're theorizing sounds very much like the consumer-gas prices relation. When gas prices are high, people start going environment crazy. When they lower, people start to use more gas again. It just ends up going in a cycle. That's not what needs to happen with health care.

On September 10 2009 12:27 Mystlord wrote:
Is there even a middle class in America? Regardless, every bracket has a tax rate.

On September 10 2009 12:35 Alizee- wrote:


Please for the love of the children and the childrens' children that you aren't serious about printing more money? The bigger issue right now is the economy and it will go to all fucking hell if we keep printing money as we have. I'm guessing it was sarcasm though.

On September 10 2009 12:47 Mindcrime wrote:


Controlled inflation is not the devil.

On September 10 2009 12:45 DJEtterStyle wrote:

I'm the definition of middle class, and the government took 31.5% of my income last year, not counting sales taxes, the ticket I got for not wearing my seat belt, taxes applied to my employer that indirectly lowered my wages, taxes applied to my cellular telephone bill, property taxes that indirectly increased my rent, excise taxes applied to the alcohol and gasoline I purchased, and airline and hotel taxes incurred during my various trips.

In return, the government provided me with police and fire protection and let me use public roads. It was sweet.

On September 10 2009 12:44 ghostWriter wrote:


Yeah, when obama wanted to raise the tax rate on the Americans making over $250,000 from 35% to 38%, the conservative pundits and bloggers got the people all up in arms with the teabag nonsense. Most of them probably made around $40,000~$50,000 and were protesting against something just because Glenn Beck told them to, not because they knew what was going on.

On September 10 2009 12:44 ghostWriter wrote:


Since when were gas prices high? Gas and food in America are way cheaper than they ought to be and are much cheaper than they are in Asia and Europe. Even at the peak, like $4 a gallon, we paid less than half the price that many other people pay.

On September 10 2009 12:45 DJEtterStyle wrote:

I'm the definition of middle class, and the government took 31.5% of my income last year, not counting sales taxes, the ticket I got for not wearing my seat belt, taxes applied to my employer that indirectly lowered my wages, taxes applied to my cellular telephone bill, property taxes that indirectly increased my rent, excise taxes applied to the alcohol and gasoline I purchased, and airline and hotel taxes incurred during my various trips.

In return, the government provided me with police and fire protection and let me use public roads. It was sweet.

On September 10 2009 12:45 DJEtterStyle wrote:

I'm the definition of middle class, and the government took 31.5% of my income last year, not counting sales taxes, the ticket I got for not wearing my seat belt, taxes applied to my employer that indirectly lowered my wages, taxes applied to my cellular telephone bill, property taxes that indirectly increased my rent, excise taxes applied to the alcohol and gasoline I purchased, and airline and hotel taxes incurred during my various trips.

In return, the government provided me with police and fire protection and let me use public roads. It was sweet.

On September 10 2009 13:04 Ace wrote:


hahahahaha this post is fucking gold

On September 10 2009 13:07 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:


There's absolutely nothing false in what he was saying.

On September 10 2009 12:51 motbob wrote:

But saying "we can always print money" like ghostwriter is saying is very, very bad. If a politician ever said that I'd do my best to get him/her out of power immediately.

On September 10 2009 13:06 sith wrote:
I think it's hilarious how talks in elementary schools are more organized than obama giving an address to congress. Can't we just say in the beginning "hold your applause"? And really? We need name calling and the "ooooooo he's in troubleeeeee" sounds that go along with it?

On September 10 2009 13:07 Mindcrime wrote:


Whatever problem printing money can get us into, printing money can get us out of.

On September 10 2009 13:08 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:



What?

On September 10 2009 12:45 DJEtterStyle wrote:
I'm the definition of middle class, and the government took 31.5% of my income last year, not counting sales taxes, the ticket I got for not wearing my seat belt, taxes applied to my employer that indirectly lowered my wages, taxes applied to my cellular telephone bill, property taxes that indirectly increased my rent, excise taxes applied to the alcohol and gasoline I purchased, and airline and hotel taxes incurred during my various trips.

In return, the government provided me with police and fire protection and let me use public roads. It was sweet.

On September 10 2009 13:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Wow Wilson's opponent has apparently received 50k in donations in the past three hours.

On September 10 2009 12:41 Mystlord wrote:

What? I don't exactly get what you're saying... Maybe I'm just tired. Unless you mean that rising health care costs will cause people to rely less on health care? If that's what you're saying, it doesn't work because the consumer's out-of-pocket costs are generally kept stable. Although health care might increase as a percentage of our GDP, the same growth doesn't aply to out-of-pocket costs.

In addition, what you're theorizing sounds very much like the consumer-gas prices relation. When gas prices are high, people start going environment crazy. When they lower, people start to use more gas again. It just ends up going in a cycle. That's not what needs to happen with health care.

On September 10 2009 13:09 sith wrote:


He's joking, printing money fucks you over 100% of the time.

On September 10 2009 13:25 NExUS1g wrote:


Imagine this...

A woman does not get her regular mammogram. One day she feels a lump and goes into the doctor who finds she has breast cancer. The breast cancer is advanced and has spread into the lymph system. Surgery to remove the lymph nodes as well as the radical mastectomy are completed along with the standard chemo and radiation therapy.

Down the line, the cancer reoccurs because of its late detection which causes another surgery to be done to remove the cancer and then another round of therapy.

The cancer occurs a third time. This time, the cancer has metastasized throughout her body and her prognosis is poor. Now the insurance is paying for hospice, durable medical equipment, frequent hospital and doctor visits, medications, etc.

This is if she's still under her lifetime limit (which by this point she may not be), still has insurance (they may have kicked her), or even has insurance (unable to get coverage because of this or another preexisting condition).

Many insurance companies currently will not cover preventive care like mammograms. Because of recent publicity in the last couple of decades, insurance companies are feeling the pressure to cover mammograms, but this is just one thing in a very long list of preventive cares that would save so much money and many lives in the long run.

Early detection and treatment is key in sickness. The more advanced a sickness becomes, the more difficult or impossible and expensive it is to treat it.

On September 10 2009 13:25 NExUS1g wrote:


Imagine this...

A woman does not get her regular mammogram. One day she feels a lump and goes into the doctor who finds she has breast cancer. The breast cancer is advanced and has spread into the lymph system. Surgery to remove the lymph nodes as well as the radical mastectomy are completed along with the standard chemo and radiation therapy.

Down the line, the cancer reoccurs because of its late detection which causes another surgery to be done to remove the cancer and then another round of therapy.

The cancer occurs a third time. This time, the cancer has metastasized throughout her body and her prognosis is poor. Now the insurance is paying for hospice, durable medical equipment, frequent hospital and doctor visits, medications, etc.

This is if she's still under her lifetime limit (which by this point she may not be), still has insurance (they may have kicked her), or even has insurance (unable to get coverage because of this or another preexisting condition).

Many insurance companies currently will not cover preventive care like mammograms. Because of recent publicity in the last couple of decades, insurance companies are feeling the pressure to cover mammograms, but this is just one thing in a very long list of preventive cares that would save so much money and many lives in the long run.

Early detection and treatment is key in sickness. The more advanced a sickness becomes, the more difficult or impossible and expensive it is to treat it.

On September 10 2009 13:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
Anyone who thinks Obama said anything new in this either has the memory of a goldfish, doesn't know how to read, never listened to any other speech he has given, or lives in fantasy land.

Everything he said tonight he has already said. It isn't going to change any minds, and it isn't going to persuade blue dogs to vote for it in exchange for their jobs. Given he is losing personal and political popularity and votes by always talking, this isn't helping things.

And to anyone that says he shouldn't be called a liar, then he shouldn't be applauded or cheered either. Calling a joint session to give a speech, something bush only did immediately after 9/11, doesn't give him diplomatic immunity to say anything he wants to a very important audience and millions of americans who are watching.

On September 10 2009 13:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
Anyone who thinks Obama said anything new in this either has the memory of a goldfish, doesn't know how to read, never listened to any other speech he has given, or lives in fantasy land.

Everything he said tonight he has already said. It isn't going to change any minds, and it isn't going to persuade blue dogs to vote for it in exchange for their jobs. Given he is losing personal and political popularity and votes by always talking, this isn't helping things.

On September 10 2009 13:51 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:
When someone can give me a reasonable answer as to how the hell this will ever be "budget neutral" I'll reconsider my position.
But as it stands I feel Obama is being deceptive in his numbers.

On September 10 2009 13:46 keV. wrote:
The president is a cheerleader. They don't do anything but cheer/talk and press a Yes/No button after all is said and done.

The reason he called the speech was to discuss the health care reform bills being drawn up by congress. Its not important to make sure everyone is on the same page when a huge bill is being drawn up?

I'd say it is. He isn't up for reelection for another 4 years, this isn't for votes... He is just doing his job.

On September 10 2009 13:51 motbob wrote:
You are objectively wrong.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/09/cnn-poll-two-thirds-of-speech-watchers-favor-obamas-proposals/

It did change minds. Many thought it was a good speech. Stop generalizing what you thought of it to all Americans, please.

On September 10 2009 13:55 SnK-Arcbound wrote:

The president isn't a cheerleader. Saying so is complete retardation. A president does embolden people to make the nation better, but he has responsibility serious responsibilities, like showing up to a session that he himself called others to.

He can catch everyone up on the same page by sending out a memo. He didn't even do that, he has said everything already. Everything. Every sentence and word (except his stupid kennedy letter). He called an important conference to get attention and applause for himself.

On September 10 2009 13:55 SnK-Arcbound wrote:

The president isn't a cheerleader. Saying so is complete retardation. A president does embolden people to make the nation better, but he has responsibility serious responsibilities, like showing up to a session that he himself called others to.

He can catch everyone up on the same page by sending out a memo. He didn't even do that, he has said everything already. Everything. Every sentence and word (except his stupid kennedy letter). He called an important conference to get attention and applause for himself.



People thought it was a good speech, not that it explained anything.

People favor lowering costs, insuring more, and keeping people alive. What a worthless trash poll. The president didn't show any evidence that his healthcare bill will do those things.

On September 10 2009 13:37 Mystlord wrote:

Yeah... Did I ever say that preventive care shouldn't be covered or something? Yes it's also an important facet of this picture and should be taken into account. Umm... That's a long example to prove a point

On September 10 2009 13:55 SnK-Arcbound wrote:


People thought it was a good speech, not that it explained anything.

More than seven in ten say that Obama clearly stated his goals, with one in four saying he didn't express his goals clearly.

On September 10 2009 14:06 keV. wrote:
I'd rather be allowed the speech myself rather then not at all, even if things are repetitive (Never said they were not).

On September 10 2009 14:03 motbob wrote:
None of it was new? Bullshit. Stop acting like you've heard it all before... I can guarantee you that I've been following his statements on the public option extremely closely and he never said anything like what he said tonight.

On September 10 2009 14:06 keV. wrote:
Something as important as health care reform is a little more important then a memo. Clearly not everyone is on the same page with someone actually yelling "Lie" during the speech. I'd rather be allowed the speech myself rather then not at all, even if things are repetitive (Never said they were not). Do you really think Obama, or any president really, is a glory hound that seeks out applause? Considering they are eviscerated verbally just as much, I don't go there. Sounds completely stupid to me.

On September 10 2009 14:13 motbob wrote:
You continue to be incredibly wrong.

On September 10 2009 13:55 SnK-Arcbound wrote:People favor lowering costs, insuring more, and keeping people alive.

On September 10 2009 12:29 Mortality wrote:
All of this is idiotic.


Any idiot should realize that a healthcare system, whether public or private, can only ever be as good as the policy that defines it. And the policy etched out in the current bill is an absolute piece of shit.

Obama's a great speaker, I'll give him that much, but that's all his "reform" has going for it. If you look at the actual bill and actually READ THE FUCKING DOCUMENT, then I think it's quite clear that this isn't the system that everyone is hyping it up to be. I just wish the COCKSUCKING MEDIA would get serious about addressing the real criticisms, rather than harping about the fundamental ideological differences between public and private healthcare systems.


Edit: Let me be clear: it's not that this bill can't work. It's that it can't work without serious revisions that aren't going to happen in the current political climate.

God no longer blesses America. If he ever did.

On September 10 2009 14:13 motbob wrote:

You continue to be incredibly wrong.

On September 10 2009 14:11 NExUS1g wrote:


Perhaps you did not say that, but you were talking about the problem that this bill will not prevent rising health care costs. This example was meant to show how better preventive care and more global coverage helps in saving on health care costs.

Unless I just misunderstood your post.

On September 10 2009 14:03 motbob wrote:

None of it was new? Bullshit. Stop acting like you've heard it all before... I can guarantee you that I've been following his statements on the public option extremely closely and he never said anything like what he said tonight.

On September 10 2009 14:20 Alizee- wrote:


He never said anything like what he said tonight? Uhhh this is the most gross exaggeration I've heard in a while. Seriously, the guy can speak well, can read off a teleprompter even better, there's no denying that, but quite frankly this is publicity shit that doesn't get anything done.

We've been hearing about hope and change and change and hope the whole year and yet the situations only tend to get worse. He barks, but can't bite. Perhaps I'm unphased by this all, infact I now I am, but its just ludacris how he can hop up on stage, speak about things that seem very unlikely to be for the best when taking all angles into account, and then everyone is like HOLY COW we've got change! Just like during the campaign, just like when he got elected, the same thing over and over. People just light up like Christmas trees and then all of a sudden the juice starts running out until the next speech. No, he's definitely a cheerleader.

"That is why we cannot fail. Because there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed" lol you've seriously never heard him say things like this before or anything like it? Come on, its recycled stuff.

On September 10 2009 14:14 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
Yes, having the speech rather than not, is the better option. A joint session is extreme.

And do I think Obama does it just for the applause? No, I think he expects it reguardless of content. He has been given the least critisism, and the most positive coverage. That is his standard, glowing coverage. If you suddenly stepped into the limelight, after being an obscure freshman congressman, and you received praise from almost all sources, wouldn't you continue to expect that?

On September 10 2009 14:20 Alizee- wrote:


He never said anything like what he said tonight? Uhhh this is the most gross exaggeration I've heard in a while. Seriously, the guy can speak well, can read off a teleprompter even better, there's no denying that, but quite frankly this is publicity shit that doesn't get anything done.

We've been hearing about hope and change and change and hope the whole year and yet the situations only tend to get worse. He barks, but can't bite. Perhaps I'm unphased by this all, infact I now I am, but its just ludacris how he can hop up on stage, speak about things that seem very unlikely to be for the best when taking all angles into account, and then everyone is like HOLY COW we've got change! Just like during the campaign, just like when he got elected, the same thing over and over. People just light up like Christmas trees and then all of a sudden the juice starts running out until the next speech. No, he's definitely a cheerleader.

"That is why we cannot fail. Because there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed" lol you've seriously never heard him say things like this before or anything like it? Come on, its recycled stuff.

On September 10 2009 14:25 Jibba wrote:He expects it because he's the President. Whether he's republican or democrat, he can stand up there and do the hamster dance and he's going to get applause.

On September 10 2009 14:28 Neos wrote:


I actually agree with some of this, Obama speaks using pretty words with a stone-faced look and a passionate voice that people believe he is going to do some change for them. Over this year, the only change that's gone on were the company bailouts that have nothing to do with us except tax us more.

Though, Obama can fight back when he was defending himself on what the Republicans have said from Death Panels and how the public option is bad to Glenn Beck's crazy tree.

On September 10 2009 14:37 Jibba wrote:
I think the main intent of the speech was to put indirect pressure on Congress, rather than just explain everything. There's a segment of the population that will trust him no matter what and another segment that will distrust him no matter what. He's trying to work on the middle to get all the Democrats in order (the GOP taking a hit with Rep. Wilson is also an added plus). Obviously we can't determine whether it was effective or not at this time, but I think he would be the first to admit that these are just words. He's not going to get away with executive privilege on something this big, so he's using a more indirect approach. Think of it as diplomacy (soft power), rather than force (hard power.)

On September 10 2009 14:30 SnK-Arcbound wrote:

Yes, both can expect applause from their side of the aisle, and that the opposition will keep quiet. However, you can't forget that bush was openly booed and cajolted during his speeches. You can't say that changing the rules will only be applied when you're wearing one color of underwear and not the other.

On September 10 2009 14:39 Jibba wrote:

The rules don't change. The democrats who booed Bush's State of the Union were out of line, and also comprised one of the worst Congresses in history, so they shared much of the blame.

On September 10 2009 14:43 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:


Part of the issue I have with this is no one was rushing to call them immature back then because they hated Bush.
If you're going to call people immature at least be fair.

On September 10 2009 14:37 Jibba wrote:
I think the main intent of the speech was to put indirect pressure on Congress, rather than just explain everything. There's a segment of the population that will trust him no matter what and another segment that will distrust him no matter what. He's trying to work on the middle to get all the Democrats in order (the GOP taking a hit with Rep. Wilson is also an added plus). Obviously we can't determine whether it was effective or not at this time, but I think he would be the first to admit that these are just words. He's not going to get away with executive privilege on something this big, so he's using a more indirect approach. Think of it as diplomacy (soft power), rather than force (hard power.)

On September 10 2009 09:34 TheOvermind77 wrote:
Wow, just wow.

If you aren't watching right now, WATCH IT. He is doing EXACTLY what needs to be done.

This is too perfect.

On September 10 2009 14:52 gchan wrote:


Fairness hasn't mattered in mainstream journalism and media in the last 30 years.

On September 10 2009 15:04 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:


I probably shouldn't have used the word "fair".
I should have said it's incredibly hypocritical.

On September 10 2009 15:09 Jibba wrote:

I like using the word "bad" because you can go badbadbadbadbadbadbad.

Let me summarize the 3 cable stations for you.

MSNBC: BEST SPEECH EVER MADE. SUCK IT, PERICLES.
Fox: Hitler reborn.
CNN: We now to go Twitter to let you know what YOU think about what the President was wearing.

On September 10 2009 15:14 IHurtMyBackHo wrote:
EDIT: I'm not interested in getting into a fight about FOX news because it's moronic.

On September 10 2009 15:19 Jibba wrote:

You're right!

On September 10 2009 14:20 Mystlord wrote:

Preventive care will help to reduce health care costs, but only to an extent. The percentage of GDP spent on health care probably won't drop by an appreciable amount. The problems go far deeper than preventive care.

On September 10 2009 16:06 Savio wrote:
My title for ObamaCare would be: More of the Same.

More because the main point of the plan is to get near universal health care coverage.

The Same because under his plan, they would all be covered and we would all be covered in virtually the same dysfunctional system we are in now. Employer based health insurance (employer-based being the problem, NOT insurance being the problem), pharmaceuticals that are protected from market forces by the government, heavy and burdensome regulations, and just enough government run health care to destroy the normal market price setting mechanisms but not enough to have single payer efficiency gains.

There are some very minor adjustments and added regulations but NONE of the fundamental cost problems with our system are addressed in this bill. The democratic Senator from my state hired a physician from the University I attend to help him. The physician came and gave us medical students a 2 hour talk on the current proposals and at the end I asked if there was a single thing in the bill that addressed the fundamental causes of our increased costs compared to other modern countries. He said there was not. I have verified it with several other democratic sources as well (proponents of the plan).

Yes, this plan will cover more people, but it does NOT reform our system. We just pay a bit more money (1 trillion dollars over 10 years) to cover a bit more people (roughly 45 million) under a system with just a bit more government regulation.



And BTW, my biggest gripe BY FAR about the current plan is that every democrat out there begins his talk showing us all those graphs about how much $$$$ we are spending on health care compared to other countries, and then says, "We have to do something." Then they go on to talk about the plan and hope that we, the audience, will assume the plan does lower costs since they talked about costs first, when really the cost talk and the bill talk are independent of eachother.

It irks me that every time ObamaCare is presented, it is preceded by a talk about how much of our GDP we spend on health care when NOTHING in the Obama plan even attempts to change that.

I consider it as big a deception as the stupid protesters yelling about death panels...except this deception is not done by uneducated lay citizens but by Senators and the President himself who SHOULD be held to a higher standard than you average Joe who attends a rally somewhere.

On September 10 2009 14:18 Jibba wrote:

Public opinion polling is bad. CNN is bad. CNN polling is exponentially bad. Stop trying to use it as evidence, and cite the parts that were actually well explained.

On September 10 2009 14:20 Alizee- wrote:


He never said anything like what he said tonight? Uhhh this is the most gross exaggeration I've heard in a while. Seriously, the guy can speak well, can read off a teleprompter even better, there's no denying that, but quite frankly this is publicity shit that doesn't get anything done.

On September 10 2009 16:14 Mystlord wrote:

I agree with everything stated here. Unless there's some major reform planned after this for health care (highly unlikely), then we'll probably end up seeing health care slowly eating its way up to 30% of our GDP. It's astounding how shortsighted politicians are.

On September 10 2009 16:14 Mystlord wrote:

I agree with everything stated here. Unless there's some major reform planned after this for health care (highly unlikely), then we'll probably end up seeing health care slowly eating its way up to 30% of our GDP. It's astounding how shortsighted politicians are.

On September 10 2009 16:21 Jibba wrote:
Read my post about getting the bill through. While it's true that they are often shortsighted, bills are often pushed through in an unsatisfactory state and then revised over time.

On September 10 2009 16:26 motbob wrote:
Wait a minute, did you say public opinion polling is bad? No it's not. Public polling got the election exactly correct... for like 16 years straight.

On September 10 2009 16:26 motbob wrote:
Wait a minute, did you say public opinion polling is bad? No it's not. Public polling got the election exactly correct... for like 16 years straight.

On September 10 2009 16:33 gchan wrote: Until then, I don't want to see shit passed through Congress based on momentum (Iraq War, ahem).

On September 10 2009 16:39 Jibba wrote:

What? Have you not been on the planet for the past 10 years? Polling did a miserable job in 2000 and 2004. It's a hit and miss practice, just like every other large scale quantitative social analysis.

On September 10 2009 16:44 motbob wrote:

http://www.ncpp.org/?q=node/20

And 2004 was fine as well, from what I could tell. All I checked were the Ohio numbers and the national numbers... both were pretty accurate.

There seems to be this idea that public polling is inherently inaccurate and thus can't be trusted at all. Well, it is inherently inaccurate, but only to a certain extent. For example, if a poll comes out that says that 55% of Americans support a public while 41% oppose it, those numbers are slightly inaccurate. BUT there is a only a very, very small chance (less than ~1/300 I believe) that the majority of Americans do not support the public option.

On September 10 2009 16:44 motbob wrote:

http://www.ncpp.org/?q=node/20

And 2004 was fine as well, from what I could tell. All I checked were the Ohio numbers and the national numbers... both were pretty accurate.

There seems to be this idea that public polling is inherently inaccurate and thus can't be trusted at all. Well, it is inherently inaccurate, but only to a certain extent. For example, if a poll comes out that says that 55% of Americans support a public while 41% oppose it, those numbers are slightly inaccurate. BUT there is a only a very, very small chance (less than ~1/300 I believe) that the majority of Americans do not support the public option.

On September 10 2009 16:56 Jibba wrote:

Polling lobbyists say they did a good job? Well then, I concede! Look at the numbers there. That data is absolutely worthless and it should be pretty obvious why. Table #1 is a perfect example of how liars use statistics.

The methodology is unsound, and the extrapolation from 1,000 people surveys is inaccurate because humans are temperamental.

On September 10 2009 17:04 Jibba wrote:
Lets not forget the awesome job they did in Obama's primary campaign against Hilary. It's ridiculous to look back and think that Dean dropped out in 2004 because of early NH numbers, when he probably could've defeated Bush.

It's ridiculous to look back and think that Dean dropped out in 2004 because of early NH numbers, when he probably could've defeated Bush.

On September 10 2009 17:21 Jibba wrote:
Luck? Just as each poll needs multiple data points, you need to apply the same thinking to the polls themselves. It's not that they can't be accurate, it's that they're not precise.

On September 10 2009 10:15 DarkShadowz wrote:
I hope it pass. Obama is exactly what US and the world need imo. But he became president in one of the hardest messes ever to get out of.

On September 10 2009 20:25 Foucault wrote:


Thanks for this insightful analysis

People have a tendency to glorify Barack Obama because he succeeded the hated president Bush. He has also gotten younger peoples attention and I think people are a bit deluded, seeing him as a total opposite to Bush

On September 10 2009 16:26 motbob wrote:
Wait a minute, did you say public opinion polling is bad? No it's not. Public polling got the election exactly correct... for like 16 years straight.

On September 10 2009 21:16 FortuneSyn wrote:


You are accusing him of "bandwagoning" with other deluded people glorifying Obama, with no analysis whatsoever. You yourself don't offer any meaningful insight, nor do you differ from all the others in that other bandwagon hating the "deluded Obama supporters".

On September 10 2009 22:22 NExUS1g wrote:
Had the FBI and CIA done their jobs properly, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. They knew the terrorists were in the country. They lost track of them. Did you know the pilots actually had licenses and addresses in their own names. They also took flying lessons in their own names. If our FBI and CIA cannot find people like this, then I suggest we give up now, grow beards and take up extremist Islam.

On September 10 2009 14:46 BalliSLife wrote:
So alizee you prefer a president that's a good speaker or one that uses a phrase like "misunderestimated me"?

On September 10 2009 23:00 ghermination wrote:


9/11 was definitely an error on the side of the FBI and CIA, but because a dedicated extremist organization succeeds in performing a terrorist act - something rather easy considering how easy it is to move within the international community these days - how does that necessitate our conversion to Islam? I doubt the most dedicated, highly trained and numerous team of even domestic terrorists (lol evangelicals?) could convert roughly 300 million people.

On September 11 2009 03:16 gumbum8 wrote:
Fuck Capitalism.
This country is burning to the ground under our feet.
We need to get our fucking shit straight.
Obama can't do it. We have to wait on those old people in that damn building to say, "sure, lets tax me a little more! Lets take a little bit out of my fortune! Lets stop these wars that don't affect MY daily life!"


sorry but I get the post-jitters in politics. If what I said offends somebody, I'll probably just edit out my post later after I calm down.