The President's Game Changing Speech

Although President Obama's Wednesday night address to a special joint session of Congress may not have won the support of many of those hostile to his efforts to reform the nation's health care system, and though it exposed the depth of the nation's partisan divide, it was, nevertheless, a "game changer." Here's why.

For months now, supporters of health care reform have been under assault, some becoming demoralized. After an initial spurt of energy and activity, during which time four Congressional committees gave their approval to significant reform legislation, deliberations bogged down. In the House of Representatives, there was an effort to resolve differences between moderate and liberal Democrats, while a small group of Senators worked, in vain, to find a compromise in the Senate that could be supported by at least one Republican.

All this time, supporters of reform were forced to watch these negotiations eat away at their legislation, fearing that their early work would go for naught. There was real concern that their hope for meaningful reform was being undercut by those who were seeking, not to change, but to kill, the entire effort. Then, one month ago, without being able to meet the President's August deadline to pass a bill, Congress went on a long summer recess. That was when "all hell broke loose."

Hundreds of town meetings across the country, which had initially been organized in order to allow citizens to engage in a national discussion with their Congressional representatives, were transformed, in many areas, into ugly shout fests. Opponents of reform promoted an organized campaign of disruption and distortion designed mainly to frighten the Congressional proponents of health care reform. The myths and outright fabrication, and the shouting and bullying tactics used by opponents, caused some to worry that moderate Democratic legislators who were "on the fence" might abandon reform and that, in any case, the president might be losing his ability to shape the national debate.

To a degree, these efforts bore bitter fruit. The "myths" were believed by some, and in the fog of confusion created by the distortions, public support for health care reform began to decline, especially among independent voters. Despite the White House's best efforts, they appeared unable to regain control of the national discussion. That is, until the Wednesday night speech.

The stakes were high for President Obama as he addressed the special session of Congress. And he delivered. He took on the "myths" and forcefully debunked them. He laid out his principles, culled from ideas proposed by leaders in both parties, noting that the reform he envisions should "bring stability and security to Americans who already have health insurance, guarantee affordable coverage for those who don't, and rein in the cost of health care." And then the president closed, dramatically quoting the late Senator Edward Kennedy, long a champion of reform, by challenging both Houses of Congress to end partisan rancor and pass meaningful legislation. He called the imperative to do so "a test of our national character."

His compelling rhetoric rekindled hope and provided needed direction, energizing supporters of reform. At the same time, the shocking behavior of some Members of Congress--those who booed or otherwise demonstrated their dissatisfaction from the floor (one member even shouting out "you lie" and "not true")--stunned many who were watching the speech or who saw news reports of the disgraceful antics, that played out in the media the next day. Rudeness, of this sort, while acceptable in the House of Commons, the Diet, or the Knesset, is unprecedented and unacceptable in the US Congress. These displays of disrespect and a lack of civility and proper decorum, that had become unfortunate standard fare at the recently completed round of town meetings, are not the way most Americans want to see elected officials behave, especially toward their president. Whether or not they agree with the positions of the man who holds the office, Americans have always demanded respect for the office of the President.

The impact was immediate. Overnight polls showed strong new support for the President, especially among Democrats and Independent voters (some of the latter being won over by the case Obama presented, while others were, quite simply, repulsed by the GOP's bad behavior). Now, it is the opponents of health care reform who are on the defensive. That is why, this was a "game changer" and the debate and work of passing meaningful legislation can begin anew.

Comments

[Rog49Thomas]

Generally, one calls the game changing play after the game.

It's not a "game changer" if one doesn't win.

We shall know when the bill is passed whether the insurance industry has maintained its unbeaten streak against the average guy or there's been a remarkable upset.

[Helzapoppin]

Rhetoric does not a game-changer make. Words are useless, promises are useless. I'll judge by his actions, or lack thereof.

[KofTX]

To Tuckerndfw,

The article from CNNMONEY.com states:

"About $110 billion of the new cuts would come from reducing scheduled increases in Medicare payments. That would encourage health care providers to increase productivity, White House budget director Peter Orszag told reporters.

Obama also proposed cutting payments to hospitals to treat uninsured patients by $106 billion on the assumption those ranks would decline as health care reforms phase in.

An additional $75 billion would come from "better pricing of Medicare drugs," Orszag said, adding the White House was in talks with stakeholders over the best way to do that.

The remaining $22 billion in proposed cuts would come from smaller reforms, such as adjusting payment rates for physician imaging services and cutting waste, fraud and abuse."

And you have a problem with this?
The $110 and $106 billion are generated by taking away federal subsidies to insurance firms and hospitals covering the uninsured, respectively.

As for mandates, there is little else one can do to decrease the amount of FEDERAL tax dollars being spent on the "national emergency room healthcare" than to mandate ANY kind of coverage while at the same time providing multiple options that the consumer can afford. I'd rather have cheaper premiums AND not have pay for the emergency room for other people any day!

[Tuckerndfw]

I strongly oppose HR 3200 because I have read the bill and see nothing of value in it except to insurance company execs and stockholders. It will do NOTHING to reduce costs to our emergency rooms because poor people are not going to buy insurance regardless what the gov't demands. The same people who are now using the emergency room for primary health care will continue using it.

[KofTX]

Your statement is full of opinion (of which you have the full right to) that can be easily refuted. There are MILLIONS of people who are EMPLOYED, yet cannot afford insurance right now because premiums have gone up at three times the rate of wages in the last ten years. If those people were given more affordable choices, they would be insured. There are also MILLIONS of unemployed people who use Medicaid, so they aren't forced to use the emergency room uninsured.

[Amplifryer]

There's no assumption that the CBO has already weighed in that Obama's plan can't be paid for by "savings".

The evidence is overwhelming for the incompetence of government running anything.

When Medicare was implemented in 1967 the budget for it was pegged at 1 billion, by 1970 its cost was already at projected 1990 levels based on 1967 analysis. Today its close to 50,000 percent higher, no exaggeration, in other words, its cost were grotesquely underestimated. Review the early years. That's what scares conservatives about successful things the government has done. In the end, government can print money and make it impossible for privates to compete as the government absorbs losses like they do everything else.

[ThomH]

Obama presented a magificent defense of the indefensible.

He left a few things out. Some things he mght have said and didn't are here:

http://whatsnotso.blogs.com/whatsnotso/2009/09/what-obama-did-not-say.html

[KofTX]

To Tuckerndfw,

The article you posted states:

"About $110 billion of the new cuts would come from reducing scheduled increases in Medicare payments. That would encourage health care providers to increase productivity, White House budget director Peter Orszag told reporters.

Obama also proposed cutting payments to hospitals to treat uninsured patients by $106 billion on the assumption those ranks would decline as health care reforms phase in.

An additional $75 billion would come from "better pricing of Medicare drugs," Orszag said, adding the White House was in talks with stakeholders over the best way to do that.

"The remaining $22 billion in proposed cuts would come from smaller reforms, such as adjusting payment rates for physician imaging services and cutting waste, fraud and abuse.

The new cuts are in addition to a $635 billion "down payment" on health care reform that Obama outlined in his budget to Congress earlier this year.

About half of that came from cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and the rest from revenue proposals such as cutting tax deductions for families that make over $250,000 a year."

Like I said, the $110 and the $106 are in the form of federal subsidies to insurance companies and hospitals treating uninsured patients respectively.
The other cuts are self explanatory. These cuts have nothing to do with benefits of the Medicare/Medicaid insured.

And your problem with this is?

[Tuckerndfw]

You requested a link to a credible source supporting the claim that President Obama intends to cut Medicare.

I have heard him repeatedly make the claim that he is going to cut Medicare by "eliminating fraud & waste."

Since I believe nothing he says, it is a non-issue to me.

You asked for a link, I provided you a link. Why you needed a link is beyond me because "I'm gonna cut Medicare" is a routine part of his speeches & has been for months.

[JShankel]

Two men spoke in the joint session of congress on wednesday.

One laid out a coherent agenda for substantive health care reform. The other shouted "you lie!"

Guess which of the two men had their legislative agenda immediately attended to the following day?

[Tuckerndfw]

Did someone other than Obama & Wilson say something to Congress?

President Obama's words were empty rhetoric, as usual.

And, he definitely lied when he claimed illegals would not benefit from HR 3200. Which is when he was called out, rather rudely, by Mr. Wilson.

President Obama claims that everyone will benefit by being required to buy insurance. HR 3200 requires illegals to buy insurance. Unless the president has some secret plan unknown to anyone else, "everyone" includes illegal immigrants.

So, which is it? Is he lying about everyone benefiting, or, is he lying about illegals not benefiting?

One of those statements must be a lie.

[JShankel]

"H.R. 3200: Sec 246 NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."

This is how the bill read on Wednesday when Joe made his outburst.

Facts are stubborn things.

[socalgal38]

if that was true why does HR3200 leaves 3 % uncovered? Only 97% will benefit from HR3200, but true is nobody is going to benefit except for the insurance companies.

[Tuckerndfw]

BTW, for the record, I consider the illegals will benefit issue to be just another red herring issue that seems to permeate the entire discussion on both sides.

[JShankel]

My point isn't about illegals per se. It could have been abortion. It could have been death panels.

My point is that Obama makes a rousing, invited speech in favor of health care reform. One repbulican congressperson throws a tantrum.

The next day the Democrats did everything they could...to placate the tantrum thrower. He is getting his needs met. The Democrats are making sure that Joe Wilson's agenda is attended to with all due haste.

Obama is still waiting for a call back.

That is the nature of the Democratic party: the service wing of the Republican party.

[KofTX]

For those who care to do so, compare what candidate Obama said he would get done and what President Obama has done....here's a few highlights:

Moving to close Gitmo
Outlawing "enhanced" interrogation techniques (Torture)
Lilly Ledbetter Act
Saving America from financial depression
The Budget (biggest progressive investment in history)
Stimulus Bill
Ending the Iraq War (although war was never declared by congress)
Using Diplomacy and targeted military action to cripple Al-Quaeda
The most significant push for Healthcare Reform in decades....

IT'S BEEN A BUSY 8 MONTHS PEOPLE...

[Tuckerndfw]

I'm not going to waste time arguing with you, but your claims are a bit sketchy at best regarding his "accomplishments."

[KofTX]

That's funny...

When someone ask you to substantiate your claims with facts, you think it's "wasting time". As for the president's accomplishments, name something I listed that is inaccurate. You can argue with opinions like "Saved America from financial depression only to a point. The fact is, WE ARE NOT IN A DEPRESSION (which is what virtually all economist say we were heading). It was the Obama Administrations fiscal and monetary policy that would either advert a depression or make it worse...HE HASN'T MADE IT WORSE. The job-loss rate is slowly declining (a lagging indicator of recovery). The rest you can check online...opinion free!

[Amplifryer]

There are very few opponents of health care reform, but quite a few opponents, a majority in fact, against a "gpvernment option", and these individuals are hardly on the defensive.

When the president states that nobody will be "required" to sign up for the government option the media for the most part doesn't question the equivocal nature of the statement. When a small business decides to give up their private plan because it's undercut by the private option the employee of the dropped plan is supposed to do what? They will go the path of least resistance and go on the government plan. Let's stop the word games, everyone knows damn well the government option is euphemistic spin for the eventual take over of the health care industry.

[Chazet2]

Incorrect. But Zogby is incorrect as well. It was not a game changing speech, but, rather, a change gaming speech, saying little and pretty much destroying any chance for real change in the form of the public option.

[KofTX]

You assume a lot. In fact, your whole argument is an assumption. The whole point of the public option is to provide people who can't afford the OTHER options provided in the President's plan a safety net.If an employer drops their private plan, that isn't the fault of the public option. Your argument assumes that there is no other competitive alternative.

[wanttruth]

Well said.

[Amplifryer]

That's naive thinking, and I don't presume anything except the government will find a way to pile on debt, the precedence is at every turn for all to see.

Many small enterprises will likely move to the public option simply because they are looking to save dollars to stay in business. So the employee may not be "required" to join the public option, but they will by default become part of it.

Nobody has seen the details of what all the public option will entail yet, so defending it is ignorant at best, yet there's ample evidence and justification to keep government out of the insurance business in that everything the government touches becomes a debt on the nation, something you have little concern for obviously. Medicare is bankrupting us along with Social security, Medicaid etc. etc etc.

We can have mandates that all be provided insurance by private insurers, and that everyone would pay into it via regulation and IRS oversight, the truly needy can get a break etc. Open up interstate commerce to provide true competition in conjunction with strong tort reform will bring prices down with a number of other initiatives already being discussed. That's what we need.

[Tuckerndfw]

Do you know what the "government option" is?

The "public option" (government option) is an insurance policy administered by private insurance companies. Premiums must finance it because it receives NO taxpayer support. Premiums will be determined by market forces, same as all other premiums.

The "public option" is a red herring issue for BOTH sides since it does not provide free or low cost insurance. The government's only involvement is to oversee the private insurance companies that administer it and to absorb the risk (which must be financed by premiums). It is little different than any other insurance.

And, if you cannot pay the premiums for the "public option," you will NOT have insurance or "health care" other than what people with no insurance now have.

The public option is irrelevant which is what Obama says occasionally until he recalibrates & says something else.

HR 3200 = "you MUST buy insurance" and little else.

[Freenation]

tea baggers are nothing but bought out hooligans by the pharma industry...

[noneIn2008]

Read the history of 1933 and FDR speeches. Look at the following disaster over the next decade. It is going to be a tough ride.

[Jer1957]

I am a progressive Democrat. who distrusts handsomely bailed out investment banks like Goldman Sachs--a top share-holder in HMOs--and I have grown to distrust that firm's momentary favorite pol Barack Obama.

The reliance of the Obama Admin 'reform' on massive budget cuts to Medicare/Medicaid are the tip-off.

And the insistence of some in the Admin. that there be an "panel of medical experts" empowered to slash Medicare allotments to providers even further--sounds a lot more like a 'death panel' than anything mentioned by silly Sarah.

Get rid of that Wall Street-inspired brutality and maybe you will have a bill, my Chicago homeboy, Mr. Axelrod--otherwise look up recipes for overdone 'lame duck.' With my compliments.

[KofTX]

please post a link providing proof of these "budget cuts to Medicare/Medicaid". I have heard of none other than the subsidies to insurance companies...

[Tuckerndfw]

CNN Money.com

June 13, 2009: 7:40 AM ET

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- President Barack Obama Saturday proposed an additional $313 billion in cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and other programs to pay for health care reforms expected to cost about $1 trillion over the next decade."

Source & full story: http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/13/news/economy/Obama_health_Care.reut/index.htm

[good4america]

As an Alabama Republican I have written both of my Senators and my congressman twice in the last two day. I feel that we Republicans need to be part of the solution or else we are not living up to our responsibilities. Where have all the rational people gone to? Are they afraid to speak up. Are they afriad that Rush or Glen Beck will attack them.

[outragedkar]

Thank you. Nice to have more Southern Republicans speak up for true rational thinking v. rhetoric. We know they exist, but it is unfortunate their voices continue to be muzzled by the Republican party... the self-proclaimed party of freedom, except when you disagree with them.

[Lucile Smith]

these racist teabaggers just got be the biggest fool in the world now you pay the salary of the senators and congress people their insurance for them and their spouses you don;t have any insurance and you marching against you own interest try marching against their health care until them make it possible for you that don;t have insurance get some. but to think like that you would have to have brain which you don;t have .

[bayside]

He talks pretty. Now ;lets see what he does. To date, they dont match..One reason could be all those conservatives he has around him ..By why put them around him unless he has the same values..Why not put others around him who match what he says and will help him get that agenda accomplished .. Someone is being fooled..

[Tuckerndfw]

With all due respect, anyone whose opinion can be altered by a speech is too unstable to call a supporter or opponent.

A nation that enacts laws based on emotions or speeches is a nation doomed to failure.

HR 3200 is a dog that does not lead to universal health care or single payer but you would never know it by listening to Obama's supporters. They appear to think it's going to be free or cost very little and clean their houses for them.

They are going to be very disappointed if HR 3200 is enacted into law as more or less written.

[good4america]

I like the idea (I think I heard it came from McGovern) that said, lets forget all this bickering. We have Medicade. Let's just say it doesn't start at 65 but starts at conception and then let's move on to the issue of putting people back to work.

[Tuckerndfw]

President Obama claims he is going to cut Medicare by $500 Billion (with a B).

Medicare is heavily subsidized by taxpayers and it is going broke.

There is no chance that Congress is going to expand a system that is going broke. Especially when they are cutting its budget.

The best solution is HR 676 which is single payer genuine universal health care paid for by general taxation. It charges no premiums or fees and wastes zero dollars on insurance companies.

Congress is not supporting that because it gives nothing to their insurance company cronies. And, it is a gov't take over of the health care system.

From where I sit, I'd much rather the gov't take responsibility than I would having the entire US heatlh care system turned over to insurance companies, which is what HR 3200 really does. It REQUIRES everyone buy insurance and little else.

If people actually read & understood HR 3200, especially progressives & liberals, they would not be supporting it. But, since they haven't read it, they run around claiming it will do all kinds of things it will not do, such as providing universal health care or leads to single payer. It does neither.