That's what people reported to be - the poll is instant results, not demographically adjusted. Realistically, chances are that more Dems watched the speech than Republicans anyway - so I don't know that it was an outlier sample.
That was a very interesting speech. He spoke to a number of different key concerns and a number of different worldviews/mentalities, and he wrapped it up with sort of a universal vision for a future based on traditional American values. “We help our fellow man”. I think a good way to follow this up in the coming weeks might be to outline some specifics about where the savings will come from, but maybe he should wait a couple of days first. The cost issue seems to be one the Republicans are starting to try to regroup around and maybe he should hold off a bit until they all get clustered together and then yank the rug out from under them again. The timeline is quite important now. The Dems will want to build up to a point where they can get the political commitments they need and then pass the thing in short order after that.
I think these points should be communicated repeatedly in the coming weeks: “Leave what works and fix what doesn’t work.” “We help our fellow Americans in times of need.” (Or something similar. I can’t remember his exact wording.) “The net cost will be zero.” And I think they should begin to outline where some of the savings will come from, which shouldn’t be that hard because I’m sure they’ve been studying the systems in other countries that are run at less than 2/3 of the cost of the US system. When they talk about the expenditures that will be offset by the savings I think they should talk about them in annual terms, because I think that’s how people tend to think about such costs. I think they should talk about $90 billion per year for 10 years rather than $900 billion over 10 years, iow. The race to the finish begins!
i guess the wingnuts didn't even bother watching it because they don't care about healthcare reform anyway
Great speech by President Obama! Finally, there was some passion/anger from the president in regards to the critics. Hopefully this will improve the momentum for the healthcare reform and something will get done soon.
I liked a lot of the speech, but I think saying he won't add a dime to the deficits was probably a mistake.
I'm still a little shocked whenever I watch a President that understands what he is talking about and who is articulate enough to get the message across to the American people. Great speech. It's too bad he waited this long to dispel the lies being spread by the right.
The "you lie" moment... <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TyTelRaoBAI&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TyTelRaoBAI&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Actually tort reform can help reduce the cost of health care. The Urban Institute thinks it can save 129 billion over 10 years. Not the biggest chunk in its savings study, but it's still substantial. http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/46492summary.pdf How we can pay for health care reform. A new analysis shows that savings from many popular health reform ideas would finance the lion’s share of the cost of comprehensive health care reform. It also shows that a combination of revenue options currently being discussed would provide more than enough money to fill the relatively modest gap between the cost of reform and the savings resulting from it. The Urban Institute analysis outlines multiple options for health reforms that would save the government $1.25 trillion over 10 years: reductions in payments to specific components of Medicare and reallocation of money currently spent on the safety net could save $624 billion; improvements in chronic disease management, prevention, HIT, and end-of-life care would generate savings totaling $498 billion; malpractice reform could provide $129 billion in savings. In addition, introducing a public plan option into the health insurance exchange could save $224 to $400 billion. The researchers also provide estimates for a range of government revenue sources and suggest that spreading the costs broadly across an array of options is the best financing approach. For example, over 10 years: A progressive payroll tax on employers that do not offer insurance coverage could generate $570 billion; A cap on the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored insurance could add as much as $456 billion; Raising the income on high-income households by 5 percentage points would add $224 billion; Extending the individual share of the Medicare tax to unearned income -- it currently applies only to wages – would raise $435 billion. Ultimately, the authors quantify how the reform process rests on this process of balancing savings and needed revenues with the overall cost of reform – but show that many options for saving money and sharing financing exist.
This continues to ignore the fact that we've already had tort reform in multiple states and it's been shown that it didn't have that impact. So do we go with the theory that suggests that Idea A would have Impact B, or the fact that Idea A doesn't have Impact B?
I don't trust think tanks, never have. They either have liberal, conservative, or corporate agendas and tend to play with the facts.
I really wish he would have called that heckler out. At the very least, I hope the name of the person who did that is made public. Then, I want to see that person show us exactly what part of the legislation specifies that illegals WILL be covered under the plan. It's a sad day when the right has become so drunk on it's own lies that they can't even restrain themselves from more yelling and screaming during a Presidential address to this nation's citizens.
Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090910/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_overhaul_149
Dude probably just helped himself in South Carolina, if anyone in the state made it past the digital signal conversion. Kind of sad it was a white dude from south carolina to be the first to break that decorum when the speaker was the first african american president, but... whatever... at least he didn't add "boy." As for finding a fact pointing to illegals being covered, you are joking, yeah? That's not how the GOP rolls right now. Just be loud and repeat yourself, and throw -isms at your opponent. Party of Ike? Party of Reagan even? Bush I? Forget it. It's the party of basso, and what the nation does with this party, as its currently defining itself on hate radio and ever-increasingly in the daylight, will determine whether we jump the shark or not.
Rep. Joe Wilson shouted "You lie" after President Obama denied health reform would cover illegal immigrants. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, wears a sign around his neck during Obama's speech Wednesday night.
The study itself (found in the brief) believes malpractice reform can save ~1 percent of total health spending or premiums. Again, not the greatest amount but it'd be 123 billion more (over 10 years) than not doing it. It's a worthwhile bone to throw provided there's universal coverage. With universal coverage, claimants wouldn't have to rely upon tort awards to finance their medical care. Reducing costs won't reduce premiums if there are other variables affecting costs and premiums. I'm reintroducing the idea because there are people here who believe Impact B discredits Idea A in reaction to partisans on the other side thinking it some magical standalone bullet. While tort reform doesn't drastically reduce premiums, it will save money (more for states without any reform), keep doctors in their state by reducing overhead, and reduce waste in "Defense Medicine" practices and in administrative oversight. fwiw, the Urban Institute is left of center.
I'm not going to lie. I'm perfectly happy with my health plan. I work for a huge corporation (CBS) and they have always had several good, affordable, medical options. I don't want anything to change. Call me selfish, but would it be inaccurate to say that over half of the country probably has affordable insurance that it can live with? I haven't studied any of it that much, (I'm just guessing)because currently it does not affect my family. Hospitals help people right now whether they have insurance or not. You find me a hospital that kicks a sick child to the curb because their parents can't pay or are un-insured and I will shut the hell up. I can tell you, that at Texas Children's Hospital where my wife works, they service tons of uninsured children. Am I way off base here?
I don't think anyone has suggested that everyone has an insurance problem. But the reality is that every year, your insurance cost to CBS is going up substantially more than inflation. That's money that CBS pays an insurer that could have gone to you in the form of a raise. And every year, fewer companies can afford it, meaning fewer companies offer that insurance to people. And ultimately, you're paying for it through various taxes. It's a highly inefficient way to care for the uninsured that costs more than if you just insured them in the first place.
