Obama: 'Time To Deliver' On Health Care (VIDEO)

AP: WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama pleaded for action on his health care agenda, using his weekly radio and Internet address to focus on his domestic priority even while traveling overseas.

"It's time to deliver," Obama said Saturday.

His remarks were timed to gatherings in living rooms and coffee shops around the country by tens of thousands of people to discuss health care. The weekend events, organized by his campaign, were intended to try to build a groundswell of support for congressional action.

"If we do nothing, everyone's health care will be put in jeopardy," Obama said.

"Fixing what's wrong with our health care system is no longer a luxury we hope to achieve _ it's a necessity we cannot postpone any longer," said the president, who attended D-Day ceremonies in France on Saturday.

The first bill containing language to put in place his health care goals has begun circulating on Capitol Hill. Draft legislation from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee would require employers to cover their employees or pay a penalty, and would guarantee coverage for all.

That parallels Obama's goals of lowering costs, ensuring choice, and providing coverage to some 50 million uninsured Americans.

Obama articulated those goals again in his radio address and in a videotaped message prepared for supporters at the community meetings.

Story continues below

advertisement

"Any health care reform must be built around fundamental reforms that lower costs, improve quality and coverage and also protect consumer choice," Obama said in the radio address.

He said he supports a plan that would not add to the budget deficit, touching on a major issue that remains unresolved little more than a week away from the first scheduled votes in Senate committees.

Congress still hasn't figured out how to pay for a health overhaul that could cost $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion or even more over a decade. Obama has put forward some ideas, including cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Others he's suggested, including limiting some tax deductions rich people can take, have already gotten shot down on Capitol Hill.

And despite Obama's stated preference for a bipartisan solution, that's looking hard to achieve.

Although he didn't mention the issue in his radio address, Obama supports a new public insurance plan that would give all Americans the opportunity of getting government-sponsored care.

Private insurers are adamantly opposed, fearing they'd be driven out of business, as are most Republicans. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell spoke in the Senate almost every day this past week against the concept and reiterated the point in an interview with radio reporters Friday.

"The key to a bipartisan bill is to not have a government plan in the bill, no matter what it's called," said McConnell, R-Ky. "When I say no government plan, I mean no government plan. Not something described some other way, not something that gets us to the same place by indirection. No government plan."

Obama barely mentioned such opposition in his address.

"When you bring together disparate groups with differing views, there will be lively debate. And that's a debate I welcome," the president said. "But what we can't welcome is reform that just invests more money in the status quo _ reform that throws good money after bad habits."

___

On the Net:

Video of address: http://www.whitehouse.gov/

Comments

[kstuff]

Everyone thinks that they have good insurance, until they get sick. Anything more severe or chronic and you're screwed. If our health care strategy is to hope and pray that we don't get ill, then there's something seriously wrong with us. Most health conditions are outside of our own personal control.

[kstuff]

private insurers fear that they'll be driven out of service...­exactly. that's the point.

[windup]

When is McConnell up for re-election? Remember this, Kentucky!

[poaster]

If the new plan is all about choice and not mandated, it will have a chance at succeeding. It has to be architected with the patient in mind, otherwise it the greedy insurers and HMO's will continue to make it a money grab.

[Shaddup]

If I can't have single payer health care, then government employees (congress) should get no government health care. Reptiles get none, because they hate "big' government. If you want to fix the problem, give the elite (poloiticians) what we the people have.

[swift goat pet for truth]

So true.

[chitown8]

Don't forget the Bushies and Chenies all get free healthcare for the rest of their days.

[Beachchick]

...and hide all their money in sophisticated legal tax evasion schemes. They don't pay taxes and hold billions in multinational corporate stock. They are the fifth column.

[aflyinyoursoup]

"Congress still hasn't figured out how to pay for a health overhaul that could cost $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion or even more over a decade."
Let's see:

At about 10 billion a month for an illegal and immoral war in Iraq (10b x 120) it would take about a decade to expend 1.2t...Con­gress figured that out in a hurry. This, of course was for the benefit of no-bid mega-contractors, part of the Corporate Power Structure.

At least 1.2t in funds has been either doled out or ear-marked to "bail out" Wall St. and/or other grossly mismanaged corporations. Congress figured that out in a big hurry. This, of course was for the benefit of yet other sectors of the Corporate Power Structure.

Over the past few decades, how much time and energy has congress devoted to create slippery machinations designed to divert vast allocations of wealth to the Corporate Power Structure?
Untold trillions, to be sure!
Again, at the expense of the American tax payer.

Yet these poor helpless corporate shills simply can't figure out how to divert what historically amounts to a mere pittance of all this wealth for the well being of the American tax payer!

Is it just me, or is there a pattern here?

[aflyinyoursoup]

Correction:
"Over the past few decades, how much time and energy has congress devoted to create slippery machinations designed to divert vast allocations of wealth to the Corporate Power Structure?
Untold trillions, to be sure! "

Should read: "Untold man hours and sleepless nights...t­o the tune of untold trillions in diverted wealth....­."

[maxfax]

Only without insurance companies, will healthcare improve in this country, otherwise we're wasting billions each year on profits not people's health.

[PuzzledinPeoria]

The Princes and Princesses of the United States, (Senators and Congress members) who have the best all-expenses-paid health insurance in the world, bickering over what we peasants will get?

It will be a joke, trust me.

[CanadianBeef]

So Obama suggests giving Americans the CHOICE of a government health option, and insurance corporations, backed by their GOP friends, are against it. Apparently choice, to a Republican, is restricted to the private sector.
It's pretty obvious to me that a government choice wouldn't hurt the private sector. People who sign onto the governemtn plan will mainly be those insurers don't want -- the risky sick and the unable poor. That's why Medicare and Medicaid are tolerated in America -- those buggers are unprofitable!
The REAL fear of right-wingers is that expanded government health care will be chosen by the non-sick and the non-poor, and that those people will have a good experience.

[olmossy]

One thing we will have happen , IF we get the Government Plan. ( at least one )
The HMOs and Hospitals owned by Insurance Companys and Investers will Work deals with the Customers of the Insurance Companys , NOT availlabe to people on the Covernments plan.
In other words they will do everying in their power destroy the Government Plan, or Make them pay through the nose.
Don't look for Fairness, or EMPATHY!

[just saying]

As I see it, it will work out so that the government will have all the uninsurable. What will then happen is the government because there isn't any where else for these people to go, will provide second-rate, bureaucratic rationed care while the insurance companies will provide top-notch, scientifically advanced care for all who are able to pay for it. This will be the epitome of separate but unequal...­where's the choice in that? You still only get top-quality care if you pay for it. The government isn't going to allow any tests they deem 'questionable' for your diagnosis. Only the companies who make money on it will. Think about it - the have's and have-not's will be between govt and private.

[Numapompilius]

Last part :
They are in fact simply battling against basic liberal and democratic rights of a majority and in favor of an undemocratic economic elite. Here the majority should pursue their own interest and not the one of a tiny minority.
Therefore, we have to switch to a problem-oriented approach that is guided by fact-based concepts and not by hollow phrases.

[CanadianBeef]

Right, and the problem is one of ideological blinders. The Senate minority leader is saying, no government plan, no way, because in his narrow universe government can do no good. He seems to be trying to prove his point by being a bad legislator. A problem-oriented approach means seeing the reality of millions of uninsured. I would add a compassion-based approach that says, "that can't happen in a rich country such as America. It's just wrong."

[olmossy]

Ah But the minority leader is a man with Intrest. He is not an objective observer of the Nation's HealtCare problem. He has a Monatary Intrest in the outcome. This is so on both sides of the aisle.

Perhaps the Nations Middle and Lower (please forgive this word) Class People, Petitioned the UN, to mediate this matter. As we have NO representation in the government in DC.

[Numapompilius]

A health care reform needs constitutional changes guaranteeing basic health care for every single citizen. Everybody has to be entitled to have a basic insurance. If the insured person cannot pay, then he/she needs financial assistance. It is not necessary to create nationalized insurance companies, but all private insurances need legal guidelines and strict control. Just as hospitals and ambulant care needs a uniform control of quality and cost. Europe has done all this a long time ago and many countries are reaching the limits in financial terms - a subject I can comment on later. The main difference between the US and Europe is that the basic goal in Europe is equal access to health care, and this has been substantially achieved. Costs in Europe are lower than in the USA because the governments have been controlling the health industry and health care institutions for the last 20 years. There have been errors ( NHS in Great Britain etc) but if the main goal is kept in mind, then a better health care system can be achieved in any economic or political system, even in the USA.
One big danger is the ideological manipulation of this subject. In the USA, conservative groups use a vocabulary of liberalism, democracy, individual responsibility and freedom when they actually just are afraid that their taxes will increase.

[Numapompilius]

Access to basic education, clean water and air, and particularly a person's health cannot be ruled by economic lobby groups. They are part of fundamental human rights, the opposition against these rights is widespread in the USA, as a part of anti-UN animosity. In fact, these rights are not even guaranteed for the US citizen, if he/ she is poor, this is in fact a racist attitude. The US should realize that they have an economic aristocracy instead of a real democracy. The government must ensure that every person in the society receives a minimum health care independently from his economic status. Otherwise people will be victims of social Darwinism not only as employees and consumers, but they will ultimately pay with a shortened life of reduced quality of life for decisions that are beyond their will and influence.
There are domains in society that cannot be regulated by undemocratic decisions of a few elitist financial firms. The influence of economy should not stretch as far as to decide over life and death of certain groups of citizen. 46 million people out of 300 are marginalized to a point where they do not benefit from basic human rights according to the constitution. In this respect, economic liberalism ( as an ideology) is destroying the very substance of liberalism and democracy.

[Numapompilius]

Since in the USA health is an economic item open for business, the industry providing these commodities is opposed to a health care reform for economic reasons.
Access to consumer goods depends on individual financial means, therefore they are distributed unevenly. The same is true for health. Some are jobless, some can't afford ambulant or hospital treatment.
There is however a fundamental difference between a consumer good and a cancer treatment : nobody must die if he can't afford a car or a cellular phone. Liberal concepts should have their limits in economy (bubbles are not a natural calamity), but anti-governmental econ liberalism definitely is the wrong approach in health care.

[fallout4U]

Can't we all have the same health coverage as Obama's illegal Auntie???

[swift goat pet for truth]

Can't we have the same healthcare coverage as the GOPers who are trying to block health care reform?

[escribacat]

Petty.

[jwredd]

Pathetic. Another champion of the status quo with no ideas, just more mindless, petty distractions and a fear of progress.

[harriscrl3]

And apparently there is none for stu pid people. Maybe if we had one for stu pid people we will be able to help them grow a brain and cure what ails them

Carol

[jill2468]

I am glad that BO is going to jump in and get muddy with the health care debate. He can accept the loss himsefl and cannot blame anyone else. Most Americans are very happy with their healthcare and do not want the government to run it. That would be a disaster. If the young people who are uninsured whould look into getting a policy from BCBS or any other insurance company, they would most likely find that just by having a simple $40.00 cell program would leave them with enough to almost pay the mo premium. They just don't want to give up anything. They just want someone else to pay for it.

[snapshot1940]

What's the color of the sky in your world, Jill?

[jill2468]

It is just that I find that most Americans that I speak to have insurance through their work. It is always the thought that someone else does not have insurance. I know that private insurance can expensive, but you do get what you pay for. My son does not have insurance, but he chooses to do other things with his money. When he was young the prem. at work went up for a family policy and so I looked elsewhere. I found a good policy and bought that instead. I was a single mother working 2 jobs, but knew what my priorities were. The priorities in America suck now. Cell phones for all in the family, flat pannel TV's, all the video games, but no health ins. People look at these as a necessity anymore. It is just wrong and we are screwed up as a people.

[FrozenNorthObserver]

LOL yes and he will delivering the public into the hands of those who have already paid him for it. No way will O or the de ms bite the hand that feeds them, no polit ician will. In case you have not noticed O already has a reputation for not matching his words with his deeds. Remember these golden oldies " we will do everything in our power to stop these bonu ses", while at the same time doing everything in his power to secure those same bon uses, "outraged" he was, simply "outraged"! And the ever popular "we will prose cute all cri mes where we find them" and then refuses to look for them. This will be a replay of the on going ban kster sca m only with people in smocks.

Obama: 'Time To Deliver' On Health Care

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=H&cycle=2008&recipdetail=A&mem=Y&sortorder=U

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?cycle=2008&ind=H

[frappe]

What galaxy are you from?

[MossyOak]

Most Americans are not happy with their health care unless their employer is footing the bill. You completely disregard the 50 million Americans who cannot get coverage for a pre-existing condition.

[jlabonty]

Most people I talk to want universal healthcare. In polls 65% or so want Universal Healthcare. So over 50% of the people do want it. You don't have to take Universal Healthcare, you and your friends can stay with your own healthcare. We are not asking for everyone to change their policies if they don't want to. But plenty of people do.