While some were moved to tears by the president’s soaring rhetoric, others were moved not at all. Where some saw a new clarity, others saw more vagueness. And while some praised him for reaching out to Republicans, there were those who felt he was overreaching in some ways and not reaching far enough in others.
Americans listened intently to President Barack Obama’s much-anticipated speech on health care reform Wednesday night, and not surprisingly, their reviews varied. Few said they had changed their minds.
Matt Petrovick set his treadmill at a leisurely 2.8 mph pace so he could pay full attention to the television on the wall in front of him. He’s not sure the president’s words boosted his heart rate, but the speech certainly got him going.
“damp eyes when he mentioned Teddy Kennedy’s fight against brain cancer”? Why?
Teddy made the decision to fight aggressively for his life as most of us would. If he had been covered by the socialist universal coverage which Obama and the democrats are eager to shove down our throats, he would have just been given some pain pills to loup him out until he died.
God bless Teddy that he had the chance to go out as a fighter instead of as a drugged up corpse. A chance by the way he would have wanted to deny the rest of us and that his commrads in the Senate are still fighting to take away.
I defy anyone to provide evidence that Ted Kennedy ever called for less than the best possible care for all citizens.
HMO’s and his drive for the current healthcare socialization program.
Just to name two that is………
Gee, I thought Mary Jo Kopechne [i]was[/i] a citizen that he denied the best possible care for. I guess I’ll have to put on my thinking cap and think of some more examples.
[blockquote]If he had been covered by the socialist universal coverage which Obama and the democrats are eager to shove down our throats, he would have just been given some pain pills to loup him out until he died.[/blockquote]
I’m sorry, but this is self-evidently not true. The political class will always see to it that its bests interests are well-covered. Senator Ted Kennedy would never get anything but the very best medicine has to offer. Now, if it’s janitor Ted Kennedy or short-order-cook Ted Kennedy we’re talking about, you’d have a point.
While I am not sold on a public option, I do not understand at all the argument you would not have the right to fight for your life. Whether you believe general health care should be rationed based on wealth or by the government, neither system prevents your from spending your own money to fight for your life.
#6….you cannot predict anymore what the future system might say than I can. But, for guidance just look at other countries. Why do you think Canadians come to the US for medical care? BECAUSE THEY CAN’T PURCHASE IT IN CANADA.
Are you willing to bet your life and health on a huge government program? There are certainly statements in HR3200 that you will not be able to appeal “health panel” decisions.
What the Obama administration is seeking is not a health insurance bill; they are seeking a congressional mandate that they can then fill in with all kinds of implementing legislation focused on CONTROL. Again, are you willing to bet your life and well being that I am wrong?
#7 no one has proposed a Canadian style system, or any system that does not allow for private insurance for those who want to buy it. Also as you may know hundreds of thousands of Americans flock to Canada and Mexico annually to buy drugs they cannot not afford in the US. So Americans are also going to Canada to obtain health care they cannot purchase in the US. Each system has its weaknesses.
In his radio talk a few weeks ago, Obama stated when asked the question about “death panels” that in some cases the best and most efficient course would be to provide pain medication, rather than spend enormous sums on complex treatments. There does not seem to be a question that the systems proposed by all current bills would set up situations in which pain medicine would be provided and there would be a refusal, unless one paid out one’s pocket, for more complex treatment. I think this is what everyone fears the most. Perhaps that system is already here with private insurers or Medicare, but I’m not sure most of us are sure about that.
#9 as I have said I am not sold on the public option. However, as for the concern you express. The vast majority of private insurance policies have a lifetime cap on total benefits, and a cap on what the policy will pay for certain procedures. Some of these caps are surprisingly low. Also, all policies reserve the right of the insurer not to not pay for anything their “death panel” determines to be experimental. If you reach your lifetime cap you will have no insurance, and you will be left to pay from your resources.
As for Medicare (i.e. government health care), it currently does not have a lifetime cap; although there are caps on what it will pay for certain things. That said, Republicans are not being honest on the Medicare issue. They have been fighting for years to cut Medicare benefits. Among their arguments has been, Medicare is unsustainable, because it pays too much for end of life care.
Q from Jane Strum: “My mother is now over 105. But at 100, the doctors said to her, ‘I can’t do anything more unless you have a pacemaker.’ I said, ‘Go for it.’ She said, ‘Go for it.’ But the specialist said, ‘No, she’s too old.’ But when the other specialist saw her and saw her joy of life, he said, ‘I’m going for it.’ That was over five years ago. My question to you is: Outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody who is elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, a quality of life, or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?â€
Obama: “I don’t think that we can make judgments based on people’s ’spirit.’ Uh, that would be, uh, a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that, uh, say that, uh, we are going to provide good quality care for all people. End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we’re going to have to make. But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they’re not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they’re being made by private insurers. At least we can let doctors know — and your mom know — that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.â€
#11 I agree with you that in a perfect world everyone gets care for whatever they need. Mrs. Strum mother is on goverment health care, so we are all contributing to the cost of her pacemaker. An option an insurance company would never provide. Hopefully that can continue, but Republicans have been saying for years that it cannot continue. I don’t see how they can now fault Obama for agreeing with them.
The way they fault him is on the details of the plan. Jim DeMint has a [url=http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuseaction=SponsoredBills.HealthCareFreedomAct]great plan[/url] that would not cost one penny more than is being spent now, and doesn’t require two lawyers to read it over, nor institutes more socialism than is present now.
I have one quick question. Obama is going to force me to buy heallth insurance. Where in the constitution does he get the power to force me to buy health insurance? The 10 amendment says he doesn’t have that power. The car insurance analogy is bogus because driving and owning a car is a priviledge granted by the state hence it can be severly regulated by the state. Being a human American citizen says my rights are given by God not a privlidge granted by the state!
Firstly, no healthcare system in the world is perfect, and while change could well improve what is there already it is never going to iron out every difficulty.
Secondly, there are a variety of principles that color the choices to be made. Some of us believe that a system should be a system that covers everyone rather than a patchwork that leaves a signficant proportion of the population without protection. Others believe that it is the individual’s responsibility to get the cover themselves.
Thirdly, these two extremes are mutually exclusive of one another, but a creative discussion by proponents of these differing approaches could produce SOMETHING that might work and be broadly acceptable. As I have watched the debate from both sides of the Atlantic this summer, I have reached the conclusion that the opposition are determined to defeat at all costs, while being unwilling to make constructive contributions for a better program.
Fourthly, I would challenge those who oppose the President’s plan to come up with creative alternatives that would provide affordable coverage to every US Citizen and alien rightfully resident within American borders — and if everyone is not possible, then the vast majority for diseases and pandemics spread quickest where there are large numbers unable to care for their health needs.
Fifthly, As an American I am the citizen of a country whose commitment is to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for its people. The constitution is there to defend these values with healthiness being one of the enablers of them.
Sixthly, I am also a citizen of the Kingdom of God and a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. When he tells me that I should love my neighbor as myself, that when my brother is without a coat I should give him my spare, and so forth, then these values have profound implications for the way that I respond to the challenge facing the USA.
Seventhly, I would urge those who disagree with the principles which guide the President’s proposals in this field (as in all else) to step back from personal attack and inuendo and focus on the real business at hand — which is the United States’ long-term health and prosperity. This is one of those things that all Americans are in together, whether they like it or not.
[i]Fourthly, I would challenge those who oppose the President’s plan to come up with creative alternatives that would provide affordable coverage to every US Citizen and alien rightfully resident within American borders—and if everyone is not possible, then the vast majority for diseases and pandemics spread quickest where there are large numbers unable to care for their health needs.[/i]
Richard, see my post above with the link to Jim Demint’s plan. Have you read it yet? The Republicans have about a dozen such plans ready for discussion, but have not been invited to meet with the President since April and Nancy Pelosi shut them out of the process, as is well documented. (plus the MSM will not cover their plans, even though DeMint has been on Fox several times with this plan).