Obama's Op Ed in the NY Times - Must Read

WHY WE NEED HEALTH CARE REFORM

By BARACK OBAMA

Published: August 15, 2009

OUR nation is now engaged in a great debate about the future of health care in America. And over the past few weeks, much of the media attention has been focused on the loudest voices. What we haven’t heard are the voices of the millions upon millions of Americans who quietly struggle every day with a system that often works better for the health-insurance companies than it does for them.

These are people like Lori Hitchcock, whom I met in New Hampshire last week. Lori is currently self-employed and trying to start a business, but because she has hepatitis C, she cannot find an insurance company that will cover her. Another woman testified that an insurance company would not cover illnesses related to her internal organs because of an accident she had when she was 5 years old. A man lost his health coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because the insurance company discovered that he had gallstones, which he hadn’t known about when he applied for his policy. Because his treatment was delayed, he died.

I hear more and more stories like these every single day, and it is why we are acting so urgently to pass health-insurance reform this year. I don’t have to explain to the nearly 46 million Americans who don’t have health insurance how important this is. But it’s just as important for Americans who do have health insurance.

There are four main ways the reform we’re proposing will provide more stability and security to every American.

First, if you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of high-quality, affordable coverage for yourself and your family — coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job.

Second, reform will finally bring skyrocketing health care costs under control, which will mean real savings for families, businesses and our government. We’ll cut hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies that do nothing to improve care and everything to improve their profits.

Third, by making Medicare more efficient, we’ll be able to ensure that more tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors instead of enriching insurance companies. This will not only help provide today’s seniors with the benefits they’ve been promised; it will also ensure the long-term health of Medicare for tomorrow’s seniors. And our reforms will also reduce the amount our seniors pay for their prescription drugs.

Lastly, reform will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable. A 2007 national survey actually shows that insurance companies discriminated against more than 12 million Americans in the previous three years because they had a pre-existing illness or condition. The companies either refused to cover the person, refused to cover a specific illness or condition or charged a higher premium.

We will put an end to these practices. Our reform will prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage because of your medical history. Nor will they be allowed to drop your coverage if you get sick. They will not be able to water down your coverage when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime. And we will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses. No one in America should go broke because they get sick.

Most important, we will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups, preventive care and screening tests like mammograms and colonoscopies. There’s no reason that we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and prostate cancer on the front end. It makes sense, it saves lives and it can also save money.

This is what reform is about. If you don’t have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options once we pass reform. If you have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. You will not be waiting in any lines. This is not about putting the government in charge of your health insurance. I don’t believe anyone should be in charge of your health care decisions but you and your doctor — not government bureaucrats, not insurance companies.

The long and vigorous debate about health care that’s been taking place over the past few months is a good thing. It’s what America’s all about.

But let’s make sure that we talk with one another, and not over one another. We are bound to disagree, but let’s disagree over issues that are real, and not wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that anyone has actually proposed. This is a complicated and critical issue, and it deserves a serious debate.

Despite what we’ve seen on television, I believe that serious debate is taking place at kitchen tables all across America. In the past few years, I’ve received countless letters and questions about health care. Some people are in favor of reform, and others have concerns. But almost everyone understands that something must be done. Almost everyone knows that we must start holding insurance companies accountable and give Americans a greater sense of stability and security when it comes to their health care.

I am confident that when all is said and done, we can forge the consensus we need to achieve this goal. We are already closer to achieving health-insurance reform than we have ever been. We have the American Nurses Association and the American Medical Association on board, because our nation’s nurses and doctors know firsthand how badly we need reform. We have broad agreement in Congress on about 80 percent of what we’re trying to do. And we have an agreement from the drug companies to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors. The AARP supports this policy, and agrees with us that reform must happen this year.

But for all the scare tactics out there, what’s truly scary — truly risky — is the prospect of doing nothing.In the coming weeks, the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain. If we maintain the status quo, we will continue to see 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance every day. Premiums will continue to skyrocket. Our deficit will continue to grow. And insurance companies will continue to profit by discriminating against sick people.

That is not a future I want for my children, or for yours. And that is not a future I want for the United States of America.

In the end, this isn’t about politics. This is about people’s lives and livelihoods. This is about people’s businesses. This is about America’s future, and whether we will be able to look back years from now and say that this was the moment when we made the changes we needed, and gave our children a better life. I believe we can, and I believe we will.

Step it up, Obama!

Senator Durbin asks Obama to get involved while Congress is in recess.

"I say this as a member of Congress who's been an observer: The president is in the driver's seat in August," Durbin told reporters Wednesday. "Congress is gone and scattered to the winds with personal family and constituent service. And the White House is still there, generating a message and activity. So I think the president will have a chance to tell the American people a little bit more about why this process is so important."

Progressive Obama supporters are beginning to worry that a public health care option is doomed. Democratic senators have begun voicing skepticism about the direction the debate is going.

But some liberal Democrats, like Senators John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, expressed reservations about concessions being made by Democrats to keep a few Republicans on board.

Mr. Rockefeller said he was unhappy that the legislation would end the Children's Health Insurance Program and could reduce the scope of benefits for 11 million children in the program.

Asked if he would support the bill, Mr. Rockefeller shot back a somber, stony look. "Can't you see the joy on my face?" he asked.

The president had wanted legislation before recess, but negotiations in the Senate have made it unlikely. And in the House, conservative Blue Dogs made a deal with leadership that there will not be a vote until after the break.

From the NY Times:

Mr. Rockefeller said he was unhappy that the legislation would end the Children’s Health Insurance Program and could reduce the scope of benefits for 11 million children in the program.

Asked if he would support the bill, Mr. Rockefeller shot back a somber, stony look. “Can’t you see the joy on my face?” he asked.

snip

Democrats in Congress plan to finance about half the cost of the legislation by squeezing savings from Medicare. The White House says benefits will not be cut and beneficiaries will not be hurt.

“Nobody is talking about cutting Medicare benefits,” Mr. Obama said.

But Representative G. K. Butterfield, Democrat of North Carolina, said he heard many expressions of concern from constituents when he answered telephone calls to his office on Tuesday.

“The longer we wait to vote,” Mr. Butterfield said, “the more opportunity our opponents have to put out false messages. Seniors fear they will lose Medicare. They worry they will have to discuss plans for end-of-life care every five years.”

A provision of the House bill would provide Medicare coverage for the work of doctors who advise patients on life-sustaining treatment and “end-of-life services,” including hospice care.

Conservative groups have seized on this provision as evidence that the bill could encourage the rationing of health care. The Family Research Council, for example, said the bill would “limit end-of-life care.”

The House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, said, “This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.”

Representative Robert E. Andrews, Democrat of New Jersey, said, “I have met seniors who think their Medicare will be taken away, which is false.”

So the Republicans, like the Iraq war, are trying to scare people into voting against theor best interest again. Why do people still believe these Republicans after all that has happened in the past 8 years. Everything they put in place or took away, like regulations for our banks and financial, have crashed. And yet these people still believe these idiots!

Obama's Odds

E.J. Dionne Jr has a great article in the Washington post today called Why Obama Likes His Odds.

It was not the soaring rhetoric that is Barack Obama's signature, but he recently offered the sound bite that may define his presidency: "Don't bet against us."

He explains that Obama wasn't around when the Democrats were beaten down during the Clinton years:

But Obama doesn't quite see things the way his more nervous Democratic allies do because he missed the years in Washington during which his party was beaten down. Many Democrats had their perceptions of political reality shaped by the failure of Bill Clinton's health proposal, the 1994 Republican revolution and the GOP's triumphalism during President Bush's first term.

And this has been a problem. The Democrats were beaten down so badly during those years they seem to have lost their spine. And as Dionne says "no one ever thought passing a health-care bill would be easy, and the effort hit some bumps last week over costs and how to cover them."

Since then the Budget Office has reworked the numbers and found that the Public Option will work within the parameters Obama wants, Pay Go, and will actually save money.

Dionne goes on to say:

The paradox is that Obama's limited experience under Republican sway makes him more comfortable than many of his allies are with wielding the power that comes from large Democratic majorities.

And it's real power. Nothing made that clearer than the trajectory of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination battle -- or non-battle.

Obama is doing a balancing act right now and the Democrats old way of thinking along with the constant beat down by the Republicans and the health insurers Obama has to fight all the way.

Dionne goes on to say:

But Obama must simultaneously convince Democrats that they are not living in the Republican congressional eras of 1995 or 2003 -- that if it's necessary, they have the strength on their own to win. This was the implicit message Obama conveyed to Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to push him to conclude his frustratingly protracted health-care negotiations with Republicans in the Senate Finance Committee.

Getting Baucus to move this week is essential to maintaining momentum. If Obama seems likely to win, interest groups will be more forthcoming, his own party will be more likely to hold together and more Republicans will be inclined to cut a deal.

And that, finally, is why Obama wants to make sure his party bets with him, not against him. His core message to fellow Democrats is that the only things they have to fear are the fears and insecurities bred into them when they were a battered minority. Obama is free of those doubts because he never knew them.

So the fight is increasing and we have to stand behind Obama and keep sending those faxes, emails, phone calls and letters. This time we have to pass Health Care Reform or it may take another 100 years.

Obama denies that U. S. has given Isreal green light to attack Iran

Just as I surmised, Biden was out of line, again when he was interviewed on Sunday.

The AP reports On ABC's This Week, Vice President Biden signaled that the Obama administration would not stand in the way if Israel chose to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, even as the top U.S. military officer said any attack on Iran would be destabilizing.

Now Obama is doing damage control with reports out today from the AFP:

US President Barack Obama on Tuesday strongly denied that the United States had given Israel a green light to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, in an interview on CNN television.

Asked by the cable television broadcaster whether Washington had given Israel the go-ahead to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, Obama answered: "Absolutely not."

In the interview, which was broadcast from Russia, where he is on an official visit, he added: "We can't dictate to other countries what their security interests are.

"What is also true is, it is the policy of the United States to try to resolve the issue of Iran's nuclear capabilities," Obama said.

This would be achieved "through diplomatic channels," he added.

And from Boston.com:

Obama was asked on CNN this morning, "Are you giving Israel a green light?"

"Absolutely not," the president replied. "And I think it’s very important that I’m as clear as I can be, and our administration is as consistent as we can be on this issue."

"I think Vice President Biden stated a categorical fact which is we can't dictate to other countries what their security interests are," Obama added. "What is also true is that it is the policy of the United States to try to resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear capabilities in a peaceful way through diplomatic channels. That is our policy, I have been talking about this for the last two years, we are going to continue to pursue this, and you know we have said directly to the Israelis that it is important to try and solve this in an international setting in a way that does not create major conflict in the Middle East.

I don't dislike Biden but he does have a trigger mouth and seems always to say things before he really thinks about what he is saying.

Between Biden and Emanuel, Obama has his hands full. And I think he is regretting his choice for economic advice as well, if not yet, very soon! I am thinking Obama has many regrets on who he chose for many cabinet members and aides. He's learning fast that who stands behind you is very important.

Health Care. The fight for the Public Option

This morning Think Progress' Faiz Shakir's posted about how Rahm Emanuel Signals White House Is Willing To Compromise On Public Plan. Rahm has never been one of my favorite politicians, and he's from my State and a Democrat. They try to call him a king maker but all I've seen from Rahm is obstructionism and back room deals for power and money. About the issue of Health Care, I wish he would just shut up. He's going against the wishes of Obama. Here's part of Faiz's post:

The Wall Street Journal reports that White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is now lending Baucus his support for the public plan “trigger”:

Mr. Emanuel said one of several ways to meet President Barack Obama’s goals is a mechanism under which a public plan is introduced only if the marketplace fails to provide sufficient competition on its own. He noted that congressional Republicans crafted a similar trigger mechanism when they created a prescription-drug benefit for Medicare in 2003. In that case, private competition has been judged sufficient and the public option has never gone into effect. […]

On Monday, Mr. Emanuel said the trigger mechanism would also accomplish the White House’s goals. Under this scenario, a public plan would kick in under certain circumstances when competition was judged to be lacking. Exactly what circumstances would trigger the option would have to be worked out.

But in the same post, even though Emanuel said: "one of several ways to meet President Barack Obama’s goals is a mechanism under which a public plan is introduced only if the marketplace fails to provide sufficient competition on its own", there is an unlinked update of what Obama is saying:

President Obama issued a statement this morning, reiterating his support for a public plan:

I am pleased by the progress we're making on health care reform and still believe, as I've said before, that one of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices, and assure quality is a public option that will force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest. I look forward to a final product that achieves these very important goals.

I think Obama needs to tell Rahm to keep his mouth shut on this issue and quit talking for Obama. And I also think Obama has to talk to his Senate buddies and tell them what he wants and that he will accept only a bill that has a Public Plan in it.
A majority of the American people really want this public plan.

What I can't understand is that Obama has a Web Site for people to post the problems they've had with Private Insurance. What is he going to do with it and when is he going to use it?

Update: Huffington's Sam Stein has a post saying: President Tries To Put Out Fire From Emanuel's Health Care Remarks

"Rahm's problem with this is he is on the more conservative end of the Democratic Party and he is a very political guy," the source added. "He is working for a way out without a bloody fight. The problem is he doesn't mind taking that fight to the left. And what I worry could happen is the left will just quit."

Certainly Emanuel's remarks to the Journal presented a pill too big to swallow for many Democrats. "It is actually the most ludicrous of the compromises on the table," explained one activist. "It says we should wait until the health care crisis gets worse before it gets better."

And in the hours after the interview was published, the White House clearly sensed concern bubbling. Moving with haste, aides put out a statement from the president before any major firestorm erupted.