The Obama Administration thread

[pilferk]

i didn't like his comments about health care. he seems to be trying to push it down our throats. i thought it was smug to say something like...settle down, review it, and let me know if you have any better ideas. memo to obama....the debate on that bill is done. we don't like it. take the good points, add a couple more, get rid of the BS, and then you're on to something.

But isn't that what he said?  Settle down, review it, keep the pieces that make sense, add what you think it needs, and offer up a proposal.

He may have said it somewhat smugly, but you have to be honest:  The Repubs have offered nothing constructive in this process, so far.  Just "no".  "No" isn't productive when you don't offer something better. 

I think the voters have said they don't, necessarily, want the plan as offered.  I also think there's some frustration in the amount of time being spent on it, rather than other issues.  Obama seemed to address both concerns.

and the speech was kinda disjointed and all over the place. he also seemed to be contradicting himself...congress has failed, but i'm still gonna rely on them to fix your problems.

On "disjointed"...it's a State of the Union.  He's going to jump all over the place...that's kinda the point.  To address all the salient points.

Did he say congress failed, exactly?  Or did he say it's not really productive to operate in a completely partisan manner, where all the Repubs do is play obstructionist.  That's more what I got out of it.  As for him relying on Congress to act....well, really...what other choice does he have?  He's not the legislative branch.  He can't legislate. 

i also didn't like the comment about the worst being behind us regarding the economy. it came early in the speech. i believe this will end up being a true statement, but we have all thought this in the past and turned out to be wrong. i don't like people making speculative comments as fact. 

There was solid data to back up his comment.  We've seen some (slow) growth...which, according to today's report, has become much quicker growth.  It wasn't entirely speculative, given the numbers we have now.  And if you don't like speculative comments being stated as fact, you're going to want to completely ignore anything said by either the Repubs or Dems on any issue from now until doomsday.  They're all speculating and spinning to the best or worst case scenario, in order to fit their agenda.  It's part and parcel. 

then there were a few times where he touched on transparency, and for me, that's just a giant elephant in the room. don't try to sell me on transparency and new ways of operating in washington after the health care bill debacle. 

To be fair, Obama tried bipartisanship and transparency.  The Repubs refused to be part of the process.  So the Senate Dems went in another direction (and that's not necessarily Obama's doing).  Note that he said, clearly, he was addressing BOTH parties.  I think that's a pretty valid critique, no?

[pilferk]

they also believe in selling across state lines.

for most americans, some cost control measures combined with getting everyone access (which is far less than the 45 million people) would be a win-win.

but to your point, if the Dems had created a good bill (or if they create one now), they could easily expose the Republicans.

So do the dems, though.  That's in the current bill, actually.

It needs to be a bit more than you're proposing, and a bit less than the Dems created (for now).  I agree, to some extent, that the bill was a bit too ambitious for a first go at reform.  It scared too many Blue Dogs, and made some of the more conservative elements nervous.  And, because of that, the Dems had to "buy" votes with pork......which is a bad idea.  As soon as they saw that issue, they should have scaled the bill back.  But the aggressive time table (Obama's fault) and the push by the more liberal elements of the legislature (the Dems fault) forced them into a bad (relatively) bill.  I would have actually liked to see it pass....but that's me.  I can see where the concerns lie from others...along with the fact the Dems did an AWFUL job selling the bill and the Repubs did a GREAT job trashing it.

But even if the Dems come up with another, more conservative, more populist bill,  the Repubs will again vote "No".

[sandman]

i didn't like his comments about health care. he seems to be trying to push it down our throats. i thought it was smug to say something like...settle down, review it, and let me know if you have any better ideas. memo to obama....the debate on that bill is done. we don't like it. take the good points, add a couple more, get rid of the BS, and then you're on to something.

But isn't that what he said?  Settle down, review it, keep the pieces that make sense, add what you think it needs, and offer up a proposal.

no. here's his quote...

"As temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed. There's a reason why many doctors, nurses and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know."

he's basically saying the plan is good, and we the people just aren't getting it.

what i'm saying is start from scratch. yes, there are some good ideas in the current plan and they could serve as the starting point. add a few others while keeping the pork out and then you have something.

as for the economy, growth is one indicator of many. unemployment is another. and to say, as fact, that the worst is behind us is kind of a slap in the face to the 10% of people without jobs right now.

and as for transparency, he promised some entertainment on CSPAN. it would have been nice if he kept his "transparency promise" regarding the biggest issue congress worked on last year. and since he didn't, it's tough to take anything he says about transparency seriously at his point.

[freedom78]

what i'm saying is start from scratch. yes, there are some good ideas in the current plan and they could serve as the starting point. add a few others while keeping the pork out and then you have something.

Republicans love to say this, knowing full well that they still have no intention of playing ball.  After a year of stonewalling, who honestly believes that they'll rejoin the process and give the President a victory before the election?  No way that happens.  The only real chance is to get one of the two supposedly moderate Republicans on board (I dispute calling anyone a moderate who obstructs the will of an overwhelming majority to serve an increasingly radical party base).  Oh well, it is what it is.     

[Jim Bob]

Anyone see that schooling Obama gave the GOP this morning?

That was the President I voted for!

[Smoking Guns]

Who did more damage to the Democrats and Obama this year?  The Republicans or Pelosi and Reid.  The democratic party is like a kangaroo courthouse, out of fucking control.  Both parties suck in royal fashion.

[D]

How hard would it be to just come down hard on Insurance companies that try and defraud their customers by denying their claims due to pre-existing conditions etc.

Then, have some type of program for those who make under a certain amount of money.
Open more free clinics etc.


Give Doctors and health care professionals tax breaks or something incentive based for treating non insured patients.

[superstarmc]

Just as George W. Bush could not recapture his popularity with new programs for Iraq -- voters demanded a reduction in casualties and then withdrawal -- Obama cannot save his by announcing new ideas. He has to produce. All the spin in the world will not save Obama. (Dick Morris)

[pilferk]

no. here's his quote...

"As temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed. There's a reason why many doctors, nurses and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know."

he's basically saying the plan is good, and we the people just aren't getting it.

Again, I interpret the same quote quite differently.

It seems to say:  I think the plan we have would accomplish the goals we set out to accomplish.  Independant experts agree.  If you can accomplish the same goals, with independant verification, in a different way that you're more comfortable with....I'm happy to look at it.  So long as it does what the existing bill does, in the areas I mention.

He reiterated that same point in his interaction with at the Repub retreat, actually.

IMHO, you're assigning or assuming meaning, based on your bias, that might not be there.   I'm sure you'll disagree (and say the same) but based entirely on the quote above....

what i'm saying is start from scratch. yes, there are some good ideas in the current plan and they could serve as the starting point. add a few others while keeping the pork out and then you have something.

Starting from "scratch" is a horrific idea which would basically say to the American people that the legislative branch has wasted the past 90 days and has nothing to show for it.  There is SOME good stuff in that bill...why throw the baby out with the bathwater?

As for the highlighted section, above: That is what he's basically saying (more or less).  Again, demonstrated by his interaction with the Repub retreat.

as for the economy, growth is one indicator of many. unemployment is another. and to say, as fact, that the worst is behind us is kind of a slap in the face to the 10% of people without jobs right now.

Typically, historically, unemployment lags behind the GDP/economic growth indicator.  Again, he's got some solid factual backing for his statement.  You might term it a "slap in the face", someone else might term it a "slap on the back" (as in: hold in there, things are getting better, not worse).

and as for transparency, he promised some entertainment on CSPAN. it would have been nice if he kept his "transparency promise" regarding the biggest issue congress worked on last year. and since he didn't, it's tough to take anything he says about transparency seriously at his point.

Again, 90% of the healthcare debate (all the committee debate and 90% of the legislative wrangling) WAS on C-Span.  The only thing not on C-span were the wrangling meeings, which he explained was due entirely to logistical issues (different meetings occurring all over the capital, at different (some time spur of the moment) times).  Again, he addressed this point during his interaction with the Republican caucus.   I suppose it's a fair criticism that he was unable to overcome the logicistical issues to get that additional 10% televised, but it's a pretty minor criticism, in the grand scheme of things.  And it was a heck of a lot more transparent than what has gone on in the past.  Give him points for massive improvement, at least while at the same time he could get margianlly better.

[pilferk]

Republicans love to say this, knowing full well that they still have no intention of playing ball.  After a year of stonewalling, who honestly believes that they'll rejoin the process and give the President a victory before the election?  No way that happens.  The only real chance is to get one of the two supposedly moderate Republicans on board (I dispute calling anyone a moderate who obstructs the will of an overwhelming majority to serve an increasingly radical party base).  Oh well, it is what it is.     

Bingo.

The only way the Repubs will vote yes is if they get 100% of what they want (which just isn't going to happen, as their idea of reform is anything but...).  So they'll continue to play the role of obstructionist.

The thing is.....they've done it so far with relative impugnity.  They've "sold" it well to the voters.  What you're seeing this week is Obama's (and the democratic party will hopefully follow suit) counter-offensive.  He's going to be very frank in how he views obstructionist tactics, and he's going to voice that to the voters.    Meaning if NOTHING gets done, the Repubs are going to be left holding the bag.

I actually talked about this tacitcs pitfalls awhile back.  It may (or may not...we'll see) bite them in the ass.

[pilferk]

How hard would it be to just come down hard on Insurance companies that try and defraud their customers by denying their claims due to pre-existing conditions etc.

Without legislation?  Impossible.

With legislation?  There's a lot of moving parts that would also need to be addressed.  ALL of what they proposed in the existing bill?  No.

But I think Obama talked about that...about pushing through piece mail legislation, passing what they could all agree on (and the supporting pieces), and duking it out on what they can't.

The problem is:  I don't think the Repubs are not going to vote "Yes" on ANYTHING that bears the title of "healthcare reform".  They lose too much, politically speaking, to do it.

They SHOULD do it.  Likely the American people WANT them to do it.  But I don't think they will.

Then, have some type of program for those who make under a certain amount of money.

It's called the Medicare/Medicaid initiative, D...and it's existed for quite a long time.  You can't change the poverty (or disability) threshold, though, without massive restructuring/revamping/refunding of the existing legislation, which requires passing MORE legislation.  Which is the problem.

Open more free clinics etc.

Very few, if any, "free clinics" are run/funded by the federal government (well, some may get federal GRANTS, but that's a different animal).  They're charitable organizations run, independantly, by doctors and administrators.  You just can't "open more free clinics".

Give Doctors and health care professionals tax breaks or something incentive based for treating non insured patients.

They get them, already, if they do "pro bono" work out of their offices (the practice/business/facility).  But you still have to MAKE money in order for a tax break to have any benefit. 

You can also volunteer time at an existing free clinic, and that time is logged and recorded as a charitable donation with a standardized rate per hour.  There is a maximum amount of charitable contributions to be considered (after which, there's no tax benefit).

You can't give them to the individual, directly, because, logistically ( in terms of tax fraud, medicare billing, patient privacy, and a whole host of other issue) you'd create a nightmare.  There has to be some sort of "institution" between you and the "break".

[Drew]

(I dispute calling anyone a moderate who obstructs the will of an overwhelming majority to serve an increasingly radical party base).

Any party that wants to institutionalize more and more, and even more government onto the people and into their lives is a prime definition of a radical party. And that's exactly what the Democrats are trying their best to do. Of course, the population of looters and plunderers in the U.S. are all on board with this idea because they want the government to completely take care of them, provide a home for them, provide a job for them, provide health-care for them, provide childcare for them, provide transportation for them, pay for their fuel, provide a college education for them, etc., etc., etc.

[sandman]

no. here's his quote...

"As temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed. There's a reason why many doctors, nurses and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know."

he's basically saying the plan is good, and we the people just aren't getting it.

Again, I interpret the same quote quite differently.

It seems to say:  I think the plan we have would accomplish the goals we set out to accomplish.  Independant experts agree.  If you can accomplish the same goals, with independant verification, in a different way that you're more comfortable with....I'm happy to look at it.  So long as it does what the existing bill does, in the areas I mention.

He reiterated that same point in his interaction with at the Repub retreat, actually.

IMHO, you're assigning or assuming meaning, based on your bias, that might not be there.   I'm sure you'll disagree (and say the same) but based entirely on the quote above....

question for you - when he says "everybody," who do you think he is talking to?

i took that as him talking to "everybody." and for me, "everybody" includes, well, me. therefore, when he says "take another look at the plan...," he's basically telling me that i just ain't gettin it. and the american people, that have sent a loud and clear message about this plan in VA, NJ, and MA, ain't gettin it either. and despite the message from the american people, he's basically telling us we're not changing this plan....unless those ass-hole republicans can come up with something better. well thanks Mr. President! we know how great those republicans are at working with you on ideas. that makes me feel great!

so in the end, he's saying we're not gonna change, and he even sets up the republicans to be blamed for not coming up with a better idea. for me, that was not good leadership.

as for the comment on the economy, i don't like hearing statements said as "fact" that cannot be proven at this time. especually when much of your audience does not understand economics 101. he should have given a qualifying statement. not to mention it's a slap in the face to the nearly 20% unemployed.

pilferk - i remember you talked about moving around your 401K investments and attempting to time the market (although i'm guessing you have a different strategy now). so we probably took this comment differently just based on our different economic philosophies.

also, as much as i wasn't impressed with his speech, i never take much from any speech (good or bad). what happens going forward is what matters.   

[pilferk]

question for you - when he says "everybody," who do you think he is talking to?

I think "everyone" means everyone in the room.  Meaning the leglislative branch, mostly.  Remember, even though good portions of his speech (and maybe that's the disconnect, here) were targeted more toward the viewers at home than at his audience in the room...the State of the Union is meant as a meeting between the President and the other 2 branches.  A briefing, if you will.  "We" (meaning the viewers at home) are really just supposed to be flys on the wall.

Now, again, I grant you he targeted a good portion of his remarks to the viewership in his speech.  But in the context of THAT piece, I think he was talking to the legislative body (and, specifically, the Repubs and Blue Dog Dems).

i took that as him talking to "everybody." and for me, "everybody" includes, well, me. therefore, when he says "take another look at the plan...," he's basically telling me that i just ain't gettin it. and the american people, that have sent a loud and clear message about this plan in VA, NJ, and MA, ain't gettin it either. and despite the message from the american people, he's basically telling us we're not changing this plan....unless those ass-hole republicans can come up with something better. well thanks Mr. President! we know how great those republicans are at working with you on ideas. that makes me feel great!

I think you're forcing a disconnect where there isn't one.  I don't think he was talking to "you".  And he made that more clear in his address to the Republican caucus. 

so in the end, he's saying we're not gonna change, and he even sets up the republicans to be blamed for not coming up with a better idea. for me, that was not good leadership.

Rather, he was saying:  We need to pass some form of this legislation, and simply being obstructionist isn't going to help.  You have to bring ideas, not just a "No' vote.

I think that's a valid criticim.  And given the tone of his speech, I think it's the obvious conclusion, rather than the tangent you're taking it to.

as for the comment on the economy, i don't like hearing statements said as "fact" that cannot be proven at this time. especually when much of your audience does not understand economics 101. he should have given a qualifying statement. not to mention it's a slap in the face to the nearly 20% unemployed.

Then you want to avoid any politics from now until doomsday.  Because most political rhetoric and discussion (including the one we're currently engaging in) is speculation.

In addition, remember who this speech is REALLY supposed to be TO. They do (or should) understand econ 101.  This is his update to Congress.

And, again, it's not like his speculation was unfounded.

pilferk - i remember you talked about moving around your 401K investments and attempting to time the market (although i'm guessing you have a different strategy now). so we probably took this comment differently just based on our different economic philosophies.

I jump in and out of stocks in my 401k (actually a 403b, but same thing) and have since I started participating (age 25).  Been back "in" since October (which is contrary to my usual strategy).

But that doesn't really have anything to do with understanding the relationship between GDP and employment.

also, as much as i wasn't impressed with his speech, i never take much from any speech (good or bad). what happens going forward is what matters.   

I think he lended direction, and displayed himself as a much more populist figure than he has recently.  His actions this past week seem to show a genuine change in direction.  We'll see if it lasts.

[pilferk]

But that doesn't really have anything to do with understanding the relationship between GDP and employment.

Just to elaborate:

My historical understanding is that GDP bottoms out first, then unemployment bottoms out.  It makes sense.  Companies don't begin to eliminate jobs until AFTER demand/profit/growth start to decline.  They then scale back their workforce to meet their needs and they dont' change course without a demonstrative change in trend/demand.  And even when that starts to occur, they usually ride a bubble until the growth/demand is proven to be sustained and THEN have to operationlize the increase in staffing. 

But there are periods, there, where GDP declines while the work force remains (at least) static at the top of the curve.  And there is a period of time when the GDP shows a growth trend where, likewise, the workforce remains (at least) static at the bottom of the curve.

If someone is unaware of that...I'm not of the opinion it's the president's duty to educate them, or to caveat his discourse "around" it.    Again, seeing the GDP numbers come out days after his State of the Union really bolsters his comments.  It's the quickest this economy has grown in something like 20 years.  In the last 2 quarters, we've seen something akin to 7% to 8% growth.   That's a pretty noteable "rebound", and that kind of growth is typically indicative of a trend.  I expect we'll see that number slow, somewhat, in the next quarter.  But it would be astounding to see it reverse, entirely.

And, if that's the case, the job market should  see a rebound within about 6 months (2 quarters).  Speculative, sure.  But it's speculative with some pretty compelling historical data to back it up.

[pilferk]

Any party that wants to institutionalize more and more, and even more government onto the people and into their lives is a prime definition of a radical party. And that's exactly what the Democrats are trying their best to do. Of course, the population of looters and plunderers in the U.S. are all on board with this idea because they want the government to completely take care of them, provide a home for them, provide a job for them, provide health-care for them, provide childcare for them, provide transportation for them, pay for their fuel, provide a college education for them, etc., etc., etc.

The Repubs grew government (spending and size) over the  8 years preceeding Obama's term, more than any other single administration NOT during the time of our founding fathers.

I'm not using that as an excuse, but to put into perspective exactly what you're saying because....well...I didn't hear too much complaining when government was EXPLODING during the GWB years.   And keep in mind, that's not meant to place blame on GWB..  But it rings hollow when you rail against the proposed government size increases for healthcare, using growth as your primary argument, when there was no such argument apparent when GWB was growing the government (in a much more "Big Brother" type manner, IMHO...but that's neither here nor there) at an unprecedented pace.

Face it:  Everyone is not a scammer, looter, plunderer or freeloader.  Most people are like you and me.  They get up, they work, they go to bed at night worrying about stuff like paying their bills, putting their kids through college, fixing the frost heave in their drive way, and trying to stay healthy so they can keep bringing home a paycheck and supporting their family.

We might fundamentally disagree on the best way to do all that...but most of us do it.

In ANY society, you're going to have crooks and cheats who try to get ahead with little or no effort, who try to work the system, and get their "leg up" by climbing on the back of the rest of society.  That's not MOST people, that's SOME people.  For every cheat you can point out, I can easily point out 100 (maybe 1000) people who are working at places like Walmart or Applebees who are HONESTLY trying to make ends meet. Playing that game is WORSE than a zero sum equation.

You want to scream about tax fraud, SS fraud, Medicare/Medicaid fraud...I'm right there with you.  They should be addressed.  Those caught defrauding the government should be treated like felons (as they are).  Of course...that would probably mean growing government a bit to do.

But decrying progress (of any sort) simply because of those folks is, quite frankly, assinine.  It's like saying that you shouldn't give tax breaks because some people might cheat on their taxes.  It's like saying you shouldn't sell guns because criminals might use them to commit a crime.  In essence, it's that thinking that makes some liberal mindsets so foreign to me.

Just about every other industrial "first world" nation on the PLANET provides it's populace health care...but not us.   Asking the government to pitch in to, if not provide it for all of us, at least make it accessible to most of us (especially those unable to afford it, currently, on their own) isn't out of left field. It isn't a strange request.  In fact, it's more out of the ordinary that we DON'T have something like this in place.....

I get it:  YOU have health care.  YOU have a job that can pay your bills, meet all your needs, and provide you with a comfortable life.   And YOU likely think that's 100% your own doing.

But I'll bet dollars to donuts you're a relatively young, healthy, white male who grew up and went to a good, suburban (or private) school system where there was little threat of violence, manageable class sizes, and a decent amount of resources available to your school and in your class room.

Now, I might be wrong in your case (though I suspect I'm not).  But if I made that same bet on 90% of the people making > 50k a year in this country....I'd win it far more often than I'd lose it.

I'm not trying to make a social commentary, here.  But when it comes down to brass tacks, there is a certain amount of luck, a certain amount of "birthright", involved in the majoirity of the (relative) success stories in this country.  And while I have no real issue with that luck effecting your access to things like your liklihood to own a home (the singe greatest contributor to the average person's "wealth"), a nice car, or that big screen TV....I DO have an issue with it having an effect on your ability to get quality health care.  Or on the fact that sometimes GETTING that care is more than a choice between life/death or being sick/healthy...it's a choice between being able to support your family (and your self) or not.

[pilferk]

Another thing to keep in mind:

A healthy work force is a more productive work force.  Sure, when there are more people than jobs (like right now), that's less of an issue.  But it quickly becomes more of an issue as your economy ramps up.  Yes, every economy operates most efficiently when there is a certain amount (and type) of "unemployment".    But you a significant portion of "loss of productivity", when it comes to any workforce, is illness.

[Genesis]

Okay this might be a stupid question but coming from a person who doesn't live in the U.S (and only has a rough understanding of your health care industry), the proposals that Obama has outlined seem to solve most of the current problems. More affordable health care for the masses, remove the strangle hold insurance companies have on people, etc.

So why the fuck are so many Americans (87% in Texas?) opposed to these plans?

[pilferk]

Okay this might be a stupid question but coming from a person who doesn't live in the U.S (and only has a rough understanding of your health care industry), the proposals that Obama has outlined seem to solve most of the current problems. More affordable health care for the masses, remove the strangle hold insurance companies have on people, etc.

So why the fuck are so many Americans (87% in Texas?) opposed to these plans?

They possibly increase taxes, which is never a popular thing.

They give a LOT more government control over health care (which certain segments, noteably Republicans REALLY don't like).

It's expensive and we're in an economic climate where "expensive" might not be fiscally smart to undertake.

Those who have means (and likely have health care) feel like they're being asked to pay their way AND the way of "someone else" who may, or may not, be deserving of what they view as a "handout".

There's other reasons, too...but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

PS:  There's another subset who don't disagree with the policy, per se, but with the resources being used to craft it and push it through.  They feel that, at this point, there's "better things to do"...and we can tackle health care a little further down the road.

[Genesis]

They possibly increase taxes, which is never a popular thing.

Those who have means (and likely have health care) feel like they're being asked to pay their way AND the way of "someone else" who may, or may not, be deserving of what they view as a "handout".

Well, that's just lame and selfish. I wouldn't mind paying a slightly higher tax if the government guarantees that it goes to the welfare of the poor. It's when I know that the cash will ultimately end up in the pockets of politicians that I get pissed.

They give a LOT more government control over health care (which certain segments, noteably Republicans REALLY don't like).

What's wrong with that? The N.H.S in the U.K is completely government funded and it works a whole lot better than the U.S system.

Oh well, I guess different countries, different problems and priorities.