We Shall See
9:03 AM
by Nick Stone of Drawnlines Politics.
Last night's joint session of Congress marked the 112th speech the president has delivered on health care. Despite the fact that polls seem to tank every time he delivers an address on the issue, there he was yet again on the bullhorn.
Photo from New York Times Blog
To be fair, the president's address was by all accounts a good address. Of respondents who had watched the health care reform address, 67% said they had a favorable opinion of the president's health care plans. That polls significantly better than the roughly 50% (depending on which poll you cite) that supported the president's basic outline before the speech.
It's worth noting that 67% was also the number of respondents who favorably rated Bill Clinton's health care reform agenda after his famous "veto pen" speech before a joint session in 1993. On about day 4 after the address, the public turned against him. Whether the same will happen to President Obama is anyone's guess, but it is probably fair to say that most Americans have already made up their minds about how they feel about the health care reform debate.
The president's address DID NOT take from the table the proposal of a public option. Nor did he mention the so-called "trigger mechanism" which is sure to pop up in conversation again after Olympia Snowe's planned visit to the White House early next week. Likely the headlines will read that she came to the White House with the idea and the Obama Administration thought it would be a wonderful way to get a few Republicans on board to support his reform.
Sidebar: Let it be said once again that Congress can pass health reform without a single Republican vote in either the House or the Senate if they get their own ducks in a row. If the most liberal White House and Congress in decades can't get this health reform passed, it is not because Republicans blocked it. It will be the Democrats' own blood on their hands. The "Progressive Caucus" (read: "liberal wing") of the Democratic Party knows that this is their one and only chance to get a so-called public (government) option through the Congress. Because of that, ideology aside, they are right to stick to their guns to force it into the health reform bill now. Ironically, their success would likely kill the bill.
The president certainly failed to sway my mind last night, though I hold no vote in Congress. Rather than point fingers and inspire anger by calling people liars (which the president did himself before being shouted at so rudely by a congressman) last night, he might have actually risen above the fray and proposed solid examples of reforms he'd like to see instituted. Instead, he stuck to the gray area and threatened no vetoes. It was nice to see the president fired up emotionally on the issue rather than academic and cold, but I was compelled last night to think up on my own the speech that would have won me over. I will post it forthwith.
Last night's joint session of Congress marked the 112th speech the president has delivered on health care. Despite the fact that polls seem to tank every time he delivers an address on the issue, there he was yet again on the bullhorn.
Photo from New York Times Blog
To be fair, the president's address was by all accounts a good address. Of respondents who had watched the health care reform address, 67% said they had a favorable opinion of the president's health care plans. That polls significantly better than the roughly 50% (depending on which poll you cite) that supported the president's basic outline before the speech.
It's worth noting that 67% was also the number of respondents who favorably rated Bill Clinton's health care reform agenda after his famous "veto pen" speech before a joint session in 1993. On about day 4 after the address, the public turned against him. Whether the same will happen to President Obama is anyone's guess, but it is probably fair to say that most Americans have already made up their minds about how they feel about the health care reform debate.
The president's address DID NOT take from the table the proposal of a public option. Nor did he mention the so-called "trigger mechanism" which is sure to pop up in conversation again after Olympia Snowe's planned visit to the White House early next week. Likely the headlines will read that she came to the White House with the idea and the Obama Administration thought it would be a wonderful way to get a few Republicans on board to support his reform.
Sidebar: Let it be said once again that Congress can pass health reform without a single Republican vote in either the House or the Senate if they get their own ducks in a row. If the most liberal White House and Congress in decades can't get this health reform passed, it is not because Republicans blocked it. It will be the Democrats' own blood on their hands. The "Progressive Caucus" (read: "liberal wing") of the Democratic Party knows that this is their one and only chance to get a so-called public (government) option through the Congress. Because of that, ideology aside, they are right to stick to their guns to force it into the health reform bill now. Ironically, their success would likely kill the bill.
The president certainly failed to sway my mind last night, though I hold no vote in Congress. Rather than point fingers and inspire anger by calling people liars (which the president did himself before being shouted at so rudely by a congressman) last night, he might have actually risen above the fray and proposed solid examples of reforms he'd like to see instituted. Instead, he stuck to the gray area and threatened no vetoes. It was nice to see the president fired up emotionally on the issue rather than academic and cold, but I was compelled last night to think up on my own the speech that would have won me over. I will post it forthwith.
Posted by Nick Stone
on 9:03 AM.
Filed under
.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0
Posts
I saw nothing wrong in calling the President a liar, its my opinion he was in fact lying. There is no mechinism in the public option to prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining the insurance and there is already clinics for them to go to with medical issues that even I can't qualify for, yet I have no insurance, I don't even have a job anymore thanks to Obamanomics. Another issue is President Obama said he would not sign any bill that wasn't deficit neutral, but he has already declaired the status quo unsustainable, so adding nothing to what we already have is still unsustainable, the numbers don't add up. If it was just you and I, an added tax would not be much of a burden, but we are talking my childrens, children to pay for this. That is simply not acceptable, I will have to do without. Please do not hesitate to call or write you Congressmen about this important issue. Tell them to start with Tort reform, there are some issues that are good we all want affordable insurance with no pre-existing conditions, this is just common sense, but backroom deals with big pharm and the insurance companies with no transparency is not the way to go about it.
I agree on every point, except a minor one. There is nothing wrong with calling the president a liar, except during a session of Congress. The rules specifically forbid a member to question another's character or motives in the chambers or on the floor. It's also very rude.
But since I'm not in session, let me agree that the president gave many - shall we say "twisted facts" last night. You've basically enumerated them here.
Thanks for the comment. I hope you come back soon.
There simply shouldn't be a rule about someone calling someone else a liar. Yes, there should be one with respect to speaking out of order. It's not really relevant to Wilson's outburst as lack of protocol, but President Obama was lying. It's not like it's the first time.
Why did we get another speech? How come it wasn't a prime time dialog with Congress? Because he doesn't want a dialog, not a public one.
"They had a favorable opinion of the president's health care plans." Does this mean "his plans to reform health care" or "his health care plans" (as in "multiple")? Last night Obama spoke of what his plan would contain. Was he joking? He doesn't even have a plan. He's removed himself from defining anything. There certainly is no one plan, so what was it that he was outlining last night? I have no idea.
It's not realistic that we can have affordable insurance that doesn't hold people out that have pre-existing conditions. People should be able to get such insurance, but we shouldn't expect that it will be cheap or within the reach of those that aren't particularly healthy. The riskier you are, the more you should pay. That's if we're talking about health insurance. Health care is something completely different from health insurance.
I dunno if I'm with you on protocol, K. Frankly, when I think about the idea of somebody shouting like that at a hypothetical "President McCain" or "President (Hillary) Clinton", it makes my blood boil.
However - and this is no small point - the president just finished taking a few minutes to declare that those who oppose his health care proposals are "spreading lies", so he technically fired the first shot. But he had the floor, so it's murky parliamentary protocol at best to support the outburst.
Bottom line, the president did lie. His plan as it was during his speech absolutely would cover illegal immigrants. One, they would specifically be invited to purchase health insurance through his government "insurance exchanges" and more importantly, there would be no enforcement mechanism against an illegal immigrant signing up.
When he got called out, the president backtracked and offered to make sure "even stronger provisions" would make it into the bill.
Mr. President, "YOU LIE!"
There's absolutely something to be said for treating your guests well as well as for decorum; however, there's also something to be said about not having a president lord over Congress as if he had some real control over them. It's nonsensical.
Decorum doesn't mean that you give up your right to speak. You could say that Wilson could have waited until later to criticize the president, but I think it's more reasonable for him to do it at the same time and in front of the same audience. Millions of people watched President Obama's speech, but how many people likely would have seen coverage of a small press conference challenging Obama's assertions? How many people would have gotten an unfiltered version of what would have transpired at such a press conference? Essentially none. That's why I think the "you lie" comment had merit. I think it's more respectful to respect the American people than to respect these rules. The American people may not expect it but we do deserve the truth; Congressional rules shouldn't stand in the way of this.