Obama Launches Interactive Health Care Website

Seeking to, once again, blaze a new trail on the intersection of technology and politics, the Obama transition team launched a new website on Tuesday designed to generate discussion over health care reform.

The site, housed on the transition homepage -- change.gov -- is a blend of policy wonkery and cyber-community. It offers up health-care related questions to generate reader discussion. And, in an effort to spur a broader sense of responsibility and influence, the comment threads are rated, allowing users to develop a level of standing on the site.

This is new turf for a president-elect (obviously), but more noteworthy than the website itself is what the Obama team is signaling with its launch. It isn't coincidental that Obama is addressing health care in this type of forum. During the campaign, he was repeatedly critical of the closed nature of negotiations during the Clinton-era push for health care reform. Already, he seems to be trying to make the public a shareholder in the process.

It also now seems abundantly clear that the upcoming administration won't shy away from using various technological tools to pursue its political agenda. It's not hard at all to envision similar sites popping up in regards to environmental or education policy.

Comments

[poco767c]

The only Medical reform I want is free robot arms for all Americans.

[bbridges1962]

That sounds great...we all want to give you the robot finger.

[Lionsden]

If it doesn't generate a lengthy discussion about whether or not the federal government has the constitutional authority to take over the medical system, then it is another pointless waste of time, and no doubt money.

It would be nice, if when we discuss things that the feds might or might not do, that we would always first ask the question if the governement has the authority to do it, then proceed (or not) from that starting point.

Since our founders were absolutely, positively, without hesistation and in full agreement that the federal government's powers were strictly limited, I think we can be certain the bulk of what goes on in D.C. is unconstitutional and no further usurpations are necessary. Every base and then some seems to have been already covered.

If Obama really wants to change things he might want to dismantle what democrats have done incorrrectly in the past century instead of continuing on with the same old democrat plan of expanding federal powers.

Obama has yet to suggest ANY changes that represent true change from the run of the mill democrat ideas it's the same old thing: more programs and more spending.

Perhaps Obama is hoping "the people" will talk themselves out of recommending the further expansion of the federal government through health care. It would let him off the hook with his base who demand things they ought not to demand.

That would be a real change.

[WilliamBentley2]

I appreciate a good Libertarian as much as the next guy. But, this sort of a priori reasoning always makes me wonder, loudly, what is our goal. If the goal is to reduce the size of the Federal government, then I suppose eliminating Social Security, Medicare and most of the Department of Defense would do nicely. Perhaps, throwing in Homeland Security for an additional 10% to boot.

To be very frank with you, I don't really care what the original founders wanted. They also first counted my ancestors as non-persons, then settled on 60% persons. That didn't work out so well. I would rather focus on what our collective objectives are and work within the bounds of the law to achieve them. Specifically, if our objective is to give the broad majority of "average" Americans a reasonable chance at being able to feed, clothe and house themselves (and not in squalor), provide access to a modicum of health care and to have access to education that allows us to be competitive with the rest of the world, then let's use the tools we have to accomplish this.

If it can be done without much government, super. If it needs help from the government and more action from the private sector, so be it. But, what you seem to fail to understand is that people don't want to expand the government, they want whatever government we have to work a LOT better for us...size notwithstanding.

[SeanGardner]

"people don't want to expand the government, they want whatever government we have to work a LOT better for us...size notwithstanding"

Well put! I've argued that health care is indeed one of the defining moral issues of our time. Obama also agrees with this. And I suspect most American would too. Since private industry hasn't come up with the type of solutions that would satisfy our citizens, government needs to step in and see how it can assist. This is what libertarians don't understand. Dramtically reducing government will have a profoundly negative impact on our citizens. From health care, to education, to job creation, to even FEMA, government has a role in our society that can't be denied...a­nd shouldn't be denied.

I pay taxes, so why can't I expect for my government to be there for me if I even fall on hard times? And right now, we're living in hard times. And what will help alleviate the pain in the short term and the long term? Infrastructure spending to create jobs - jobs for tens of millions of people to fix our roads, bridges, levees, waterways, sewer systems, and hopefully construct a new electric grid for the twenty-first century. This won't come out of thin air. So government has to act.

When all is said and done, Obama will be appreciated for his bold action. Not for the size of his spending..­.but for the effectiveness of his spending.

[PATina]

Great response..­. I agree !!!!

As to the original poster's constitutional argument..­. in my opinion... health care falls under the whole "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" phrase (as does most of those Democratic "expansive" government programs. Another thing about the Constitution that I like is the "more perfect union" phrase... that has always suggested to me a continual process of bettering ourselves. If providing health care to all of our citizens helps us get closer to that "more perfect union"... then whether it's actually specified in the Constitution seems irrelevant.

[Grunty1]

Great post. However, I think we should trash that huge, useless beast of Homeland Security anyways

[KayWrites]

Hear, hear! Great post.

And don't forget that under the Bush administration, more has been done to shred the Constitution and our Bill of Rights than by any president in history. Just twelve words: warrantless wiretapping, suspension of habeas corpus, Guantanamo, torture, signing statements, unitary executive.

It will take Obama and the next Congress years, maybe decades, to repair the damage done by the current president to our Constitution. And that's not even counting the damage done by an illegal war and intentional destruction of our financial system so that the rich can get richer. Yes, I said intentional.

[Lionsden]

WilliamBentley:

The goal is to adhere to the Constitution. It doesn't seem to me to much to ask of our leaders and the American people.

Whatever we desire to do as citizens for our betterment, we still need to do it lawfully. And I'd wager even Obama has a hefty respect for at least some aspects of the law.

If the Constitution prevents us from doing what is needful, then it has to be changed. But to outright trample on it and ignore it because it gets in our way or we refuse to follow it is a treasonous usurpation and threat to liberty.

[biased2]

Well, I hope John Conyers is on the same page, but today I got a newsletter - he's started his own health page at: johnconyers.com/healthcare.
H.R. 676 is the topic of the day there. I would think ONE website (for the Dem's in control) might be the "unity" way to go?

[Mister X]

Modern politics: ur doin' it right!

Love,

Lolcats

[thegreatgiginthesky]

If you listen really carefully you can hear the healthcare companies whimper.

[MossyOak]

I hope it's a whimper, but I suspect it will be a low grade roar before too long.

[PATina]

Why??? They aren't getting cut out of the process (at least not as the Obama healthcare plan reads).

Now if he were suggesting a single payer system... then the insurance companies would have reason to 'freak out'.

[bthechangeyouseek]

Have no doubt that within the next 8 years a single payer system is the plan. Like the auto industry, healthcare employs too many people to make a sudden change. Insurance agents, healthcare administrators, network negotiators, claims payers, data analysis teams, each health care company employs their own. The only way to reduce costs and make healthcare affordable for everyone is to eliminate the insurers who make large profits and deny care to many under pretenses of non covered benefits and preexisting conditions. Insurance carriers exist to negotiate contracts for care and profit the difference between what is paid in through premium and paid out in care. There is no product that is actually offered.

[Fongenie]

See? Patience is a virtue.

[totalliberal]

Watch big pharma and big health-care overwhelm it with trolls. I hope they have good filters.

[Jahmekyah]

FOR EVERYONE HAVING A PROBLEM SIGNING OR LOGGING ON: Go to the bottom of the page, type your comment in the space provided, type in a username, type in your e-mail and check the box that says "Sign up for IntenseDebate". After all that click "Submit Comment". Your comment will be posted and you will also see a prompt telling you to validate your new account. So validate your account by checking your e-mail.

P.S. Hey everybody how about taking all the suggestions you've posted and actually going to the website and add ur two cents. If we've learned anything from Obama its that we need to take part in our democracy when we have the chance.

[thebluecrayon]

Thank you and yes post, post, post. The best ideas will come from the people who are actually having to deal with the ugliness of our health system every day.

[tipsypaca]

Wow, no flies on this guy. Go Obama! Show'em how it's done.

[benndissed]

this is a great idea! and i'm a newly labeled 'change troll'. see? we dont disagree with everything barack does. we are just passionate when we feel he is making mistakes. i think he's made several since election day. but, i like to commend him when he does the obviously correct thing,too. good job barack and team!

[Liberalforsure]

Why don't you wait until he actually takes office to criticize him and how bout you take a look at the current prez? If you need to criticize someone you sure do have a lot of material there.

[PATina]

The funny thing is... the people who complain about us commenters who disagree with President Obama... praise President Obama for choosing people who disagree with him for his Cabinet. Go figure !!!

But you're right. We all have a voice in this democracy.­.. and President Obama seems to want to hear our voice (or at least make us feel as if someone is listening to us). What he hears from us has to be HONEST feedback. Not just words about how much we trust and have faith in him... but words that truly express how we feel about the job he's doing... good or bad.

[mtwocents]

E-Government in action!!
New rule:

If the CEO of the USA is willing to share a major part of our government's business process (policy formation) by allowing its citizens the opportunity to make contributions as well as share ideas on how to fix our core domestic issues, it is imperative that every SANE citizen should embrace this opportunity in becoming a part of the solution.

But if you do NOT have any positive contribution to make to your country other than bickering, snipping, hatred and divisiveness, please stay of the grid or check back in 2016.

THIS IS HOW YOU RUN A GOVERNMENT IN THE 21ST CENTURY
“Government from the bottom-up”

[DocWylie]

Wanna cut health care costs 25%+ ?
Remove Insurance companies from the equation, completely and forever.
They have NO PLACE in health care and only add unnecessary burden and complexity.

[Hawka]

Government at best though sets a basic standard for everyone. Some packages though may entice people who can afford it better, in this case I think its fine for them to pursue it if they so desire. The bottom line though is for people to be ensured, period.

[iswideopen]

Go PE Obama! This is why the republicans are "peeing their pants" right now.

[mdmpo]

This is so awesome.

[Chibikim]

Im scared. A president who actually listens to people!? Ive been in the dark for 8 years. Wow! Pinch me! I must be dreaming!