I cannot for the life of me figure out who the target audience was for President Obama’s speech on healthcare before a joint session of Congress. The overnight polls tell the story:
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Two out of three Americans who watched President Obama’s health care reform speech Wednesday night favor his health care plans, a 14-point gain among speech-watchers, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. national poll.
Sixty-seven percent of people questioned in the survey said they support the health care reform proposals Obama outlined in his address to a joint session of Congress. Twenty-nine percent opposed the proposals. Those figures are almost identical to a poll conducted immediately after Bill Clinton’s health care speech before Congress in September 1993.
Here’s CNN’s quick bullet summary of the polls results:
- 67 percent of those polled support health care reforms outlined in speech
- 1 in 7 who watched the speech change their minds on Obama’s plan
- Bill Clinton’s poll numbers were similar after ’93 health care speech
- Percent of Democrats polled larger than percent in population as a whole
For my money the best analysis of the speech is from Mickey Kaus:
Expectations: Low! … Expectations: Exceeded. A moderately effective speech. …
Basically, there was very little new in the speech but it was said all at once with conviction and it was before a joint session of Congress.
President Obama’s continuing personal popularity was bound to result in a slight bounce in the polls and that’s probably what will happen.
I don’t believe that the speech changed one vote in either the House or the Senate. Was the audience wobbly Democratic voters? Trying to encourage them to get on board a plan that’s probably less than they want? Frankly, I doubt that enough people watched the speech for it to make a difference. To re-assure independents?
Is it possible that President Obama’s target audience was the news media? If Adam Nagourney’s breathless report in the New York Times is any guide, the speech certainly impressed that audience:
WASHINGTON — On one level, President Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night was what it seemed: an attempt to corral lawmakers into approving the signature initiative of his presidency, the health care overhaul that has eluded Washington, as Mr. Obama said, for 65 years.
But the speech was about more than health care.
It was an attempt by this still new president to display his authority to a Congress that had begun to question his fortitude, to show that he was as strong a political leader as he was a political candidate and to show that he was not — to use the shorthand of the day — another Jimmy Carter: professorial, aloof, a micromanager who perhaps was not ready to be the nation’s chief executive.
It is one thing to create and surf a political movement, as Mr. Obama did in capturing the White House. It is quite another to lead an uneasy country and a politically divided Congress toward tough decisions that create winners and losers.
“That’s what this is about,†said Joe Trippi, a Democratic consultant.
That would be preaching to the choir, indeed.
I came away from the speech convinced that, after wondering why France and Germany spend significantly less on a per capita basis than we do and their costs aren’t rising as fast as ours are, President Obama genuinely believes that they spend less and their costs rise more slowly because everybody in the country is covered, one way or another, by healthcare insurance. I’ve considered the same question and arrived at a different conclusion, namely that they’ve been able to keep their costs and their rate of increase lower because they adopted their administrative controls when costs were lower. Our basis of cost and basis for increases in cost are higher and the politics of healthcare in the United States practically guarantees that will remain the case without systemic change, something our political leadership is desperate to avoid for obvious reasons.
If the president is right and I’m wrong, a system of universal coverage will result, virtually painlessly, in slower increases in costs and, possibly, in reduced costs. If I’m right and the president is wrong, universal coverage will increase our total costs (probably by at least 20%) and do little to reduce the rate at which healthcare costs increase.
I watched baseball.
Fire up, ready to go…fire up, ready to go…fire up, ready to go…
Targets:
Republicans. Obama threw a brush back pitch, warning them they’d be called out for lies. He punctured their existing story lines.
Voters. Obama once again reached out to Republicans and God bless Rep. Wilson for making it clear that the obstructionism is all on their side.
The media. Had been writing Obama off, today not so much. Today’s lead story: Republicans are dicks.
Democrats. Had been freaking out, today happy.
This long ago stopped having anything to do with policy. This is all politics. As a political speech it was extraordinary.
So tell us michael where is the money going to come from. You’ve asserted time and again, that once people are convinced that health care is a right we’ll find the money. Well…where precisely are we going to find the money to cover expaning health care.
Keep in mind that to finance just Medicare alone you’d need about…mmmm…$45 trillion right now. Not next year, not next decade, not even tomorrow, but right now. Oh, and the meter is running and interest compounding at a daily rate on $45 trillion is a scary thing.
So, where exactly you gonna find this money?
Which ironically proves Wilson is right, but possibly on the wrong thing. Obama is a liar since he has claimed that health care reform is not about politics.
Steve:
We need 45 trillion right now! Today!
One wonders why you’re worried about the comparatively insignificant cost of the proposed Obama program. What with us needing the entire GDP of the US times three right now! This minute!
Yes, we will in the future — not right now, today — have to pay for Medicare. I imagine it will be tough. I’m going to put on my Nostradamus hat and guess there will be tax increases and program cuts.
I don’t recall saying that I thought Obama’s plan was a cure-all. (Heh.) I don’t think I said I knew how to pay for it. I just answered Dave’s question as to the target audience.
This no longer has anything to do with coming up with the best possible solutions to the problem. That died when the GOP decided nihilism was their path to the future. Once the GOP killed any possibility of bipartisanship the already extremely unlikely chance of our approaching the issue intelligently died as well.
So what we’re doing now is making health care a right, getting the federal government into the business of regulating insurance, and kicking the can down the road on paying for it. As Bush did with his drug plan and his war.
I didn’t create the system, Steve.
Dave, the CNN poll was a put up job skewed heavily in Obama’s favor.
They deliberately polled 45% Democrats and only 18% Republicans.
This is an excerpt from HR 3200:
SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.
(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-
(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS- Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.
(3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES- The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.
In plain English this excerpt says the company may continue to offer an existing policy under the following restrictions:
The company may continue to insure you and other existing customers, but it may not sell the same coverage to any new customers. All new customers must be sold policies that comply with new, uniform specifications that will be dictated by the government.
The company may not make any changes to the policy.
The company may not increase the premium for any customers without increasing the premium for all customers in the same “risk group†by the same percentage.
As anyone who purchases health insurance for employees knows, insurance companies routinely make minor changes annually on the anniversary of the policy. The worlds of medicine, insurance, and I.T. continuously evolve and companies have to be able to make adjustments in policy language to keep up. If they cannot make even minor adjustments companies will have no option but to discontinue policies after a year or two or three.
I tend to be strident in my commentary, but as a member of Congrass I wouldn’t stand up in the hall and yell “liar!!”
But I’m not a member of Congress, so I stand up here and say “liar!!”
Rob:
I didn’t read CNN’s news report that way. The way I read it was that those WHO HAD watched the speech skewed Democratic.
michael,
You continue to demonstrate your ignorance, which was precisely what I was hoping for.
Yes, Medicare is in actuarial imbalance and if we had $45 trillion today we could cover the cost for sometime to come. The longer we wait to address the issue the higher the dollar amount needed. That is if you wait till this future date you’ve been so nebulous about it could very well be $55 trillion or more. And this doesn’t address other fiscal imbalances due to unfunded liabilities, namely Social Security.
Thank you for demonstrating your stunning ignorance on the topic of health care and fiscal issues.
Well if Dave is right in terms of costs, Obama’s plan would increase health care costs by about $400 billion. And even if there wasn’t any growth associated with that additional spending so over time it would quickly amount to trillions of dollars. Using the limiting case of the infinite horizon and assuming an interest/discount rate of 3% that $400 billion in present dollars is over $13 trillion. Yes, I know you’ll probably want to scoff at that and say, “Infinite horizon, that’s just silly.” Well it is used because the math is simpler, but if you prefer a 25 year horizon we are talking about $7.2 trillion. Ten years a bit over $3.5 trillion. And if we let it grow as most health care costs are growing, at about 5 or 6% then it is even more money. Doesn’t seem so insignificant now.
You said we’d find a way to pay for it. So where will the money come from, and the reason I brought up Medicare is becuase, it is part of the health care debate. If we are going to pay for an increase in health care costs, an increase in the rate of growth of said costs, and pay for Medicare and Social Security I ask again, where will the money come from?
You have no answer because your ignorant of the issue.
In other words you favor fiscal irresponsibility to a staggering extent yet you have the audacity to complain about Republican nihilism. I’m thinking you are just like the Republicans you despise but are too stupid to see it.
Oh and I love the last part….Obama, the new and improved George W. Bush. Guess its not surprising, Obama is continuing many of Bush’s policies when it comes to the War on Terror, Gitmo, and so forth. Why not on domestic policy too. Yep, change we can believe in.
Keep up the ignorance michael, I’m sure its a very comforting blanket.
Drew,
Or you simply stop right away and kick everyone over to the public option and take your lumps there. At least that is a defined cost that you can anticipate and work into your budget. And if that is still too costly, just shut down.
Funny that. Most nitwitted commenters from the Left just don’t seem to factor that last one into the calculus. Reminds me when Clinton was pushing his health care plan and a pizza shop owner got up and said he’d have to shut down because the costs would be too much for him. El Presidente responded with his down home country boy voice, “Well, can’t ya just charge and extra dollar for the pizza, I know I’d pay for it.”
Yes, Mr. President some might be able to do that and still stay in business, others might not. Just because you, who doesn’t actually pay for his own meals since you are El Presidente, and can afford to have pizza no matter the cost. And even if you could afford it as Bill Clinton private citizen others might not. When price goes up, the quantity demanded goes down. Those marginal firms might very well shut down.
This is why supply curves are upwards slopping with respect to price increases. Increase the price you get more people jumping into the market. The corollary is that when you decrease the price, people leave the market. It is such an obvious point it is almost banal, but one that is often totally lost on people from the left.
But hey! They’ll have health care while unemployed so that’s something!
Oh and michael, just for grins I used a 75 year horizon like Medicare and Social Security use, and if that $400 billion grows annual at 5% and we use a 3% discount rate, the sum total cost of the $400 billion in todays dollars is over $66 trillion. Even if this simplistic approach is off by half, it is still alot of money. Money we just don’t have. Go ahead, kick the can down the road for now, problem is that can is getting bigger and bigger and soon you wont be able to kick it anywhere.
Steve:
What is 66 trillion as a percentage of projected GDP 75 years from now?
By the way, you neglected the second half of the argument which was benefit reductions. I guess you needed room for all the ad hominem personam.
The majority of economists say the best way to make Social Security solvent is to continue to raise the age where we begin to receive benefits with life expectancy. I know! It’s so horrible! We should have never started the entitlement when the fix is so Draconian!
The trends are not good:
31.8 million viewers watched Obama speak to Congress last night
52.3 million viewers watched Obama speak to Congress at the State of the Union
May need to cancel future programming and replace with reality TV show.
OTOH:
46 million Americans uninsured a few months ago
30 million Americans uninsured last night
PROGRESS!!!
Steve:
Angry little person aren’t you? Angry and hysterical.
Yes the sky is falling. We’ll all be killed. Aieee!
The sky’s been falling my entire life. Top of my head still un-bruised. Bald but not bruised.
Steve-Why dont you just say $90 billion a year? The CBO says $900 billion over 10 years. The big numbers are scary, but TBH, I dont think most people think that way. That certainly is not how I budget for my corporation.
Drew- First, this is for individual, not group insurance by my reading. Secondly, we change insurance a lot to save costs, but do keep the same plan sometimes for two or three years. When we keep the same plan it has the same name and the same cards, but there are usually some changes in benefits or people in the network. We think we have kept the same plan. By the harshest reading, yours, changing the deductible from $5 to $10 will mean you have a different plan. Being a believer in government worker laziness, I suspect they are thinking more of an actual new plan as in different company or major changes in plan details. If your plan has the same name and cards, how would they know if it changed any of the internals?
Steve
“OTOH:
46 million Americans uninsured a few months ago
30 million Americans uninsured last night”
LOL Proof positive that doing nothing is best!!! 😉
Steve –
Your charitable interpretation is fine. My experience with government is not the same.
Just one anecdote: My passport was stolen. In my new passport application I submitted a new birth cert (which took forever, by the way, to get) which was sealed in plastic.
The passport person says ” you can’t have a sealed birth certificate.”
I say, “that’s the way they (a government entity) sent it.”
They say ” Well you can’t do that.”
I say, “should we cut it open and send the paper?”
They say, “that’s tampering, can’t do that.”
I say, “OK, so what do we do?”
They say, “send it in as is and let’s see if it’s rejected.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This, of course, is crazy. It’s also how government works. So you believe your interpretation all you want. My experience tells me this is the type of conversation people will be having when they need medical care.
We’ll just raise taxes and the minimum age again – you know, like what we did last time when Social Security and Medicare were having budgetary issues in the Reagan years. I know that probably stops your heart as a libertarian, but I’d rather pay higher taxes and get universal coverage.
Because they need the big, scary number in order to say “OMG we must solve this now!” If they simply said “90 billion a year”, people might start thinking “You know, that’s not too bad a price – it’s less than a third of what we pay on interest on the national debt, and less than a number of other things”. Same with his massive seventy-five year projection of the Medicare liability (which I notice he doesn’t bother to accompany with expected rises in GDP over that period).
Drew, that makes me a little concerned about verification of legal residence status. I’m imagining walking into the E.R., bleeding out from a gunshot wound and being asked for my k stroke 9 dash seventy form. I forgot it. Got to the Hall of Records. NEXT!!!
Reminds me, Dave omitted “Brazil” from his Labor Day movies.
Anyway, any ambiguity with the “grandfathering” clause can be fixed, if one wants to do so. Abortion, death panels, immigration too. If one wants to be clear that waterboarding is “torture,” that can be taken care of as well. Why ain’t it? Why are the amendments rejected? The rubes get blamed for a lot, but I think the mirror needs to be held up to Congress. Either somebody wants the issue, doesn’t care about it, or is afraid of conceding anything.
Brett:
Dude, you’re being far too rational. Clearly you are panic-impaired. Don’t you know WE’RE ALL GONNE DIE!?!
Look, let me explain Steve’s thinking: he’s Atlas and he is totally shrugging. He’s tired of being held down by the crushing burden of caring for his inferiors. There’s not enough money, and Steve is going to get stuck for the 45 trillion dollar bill that we need to pay RIGHT NOW! Today! He doesn’t think his Chase Visa will approve 45 trillion which will be embarrassing.
My short list of projects, programs and adventures that Congress Could Not Possibly Ever Pay For Because They Didn’t Even Have a Plan:
1) The Revolution. (And all subsequent wars.)
2) Canals for transporting slaves and tobacco. (And all subsequent public works projects.)
3) Social Security (And all subsequent welfare programs.)
As a bonus, here’s my list of Things Which Were Totally Going To Destroy Us All According To Incontrovertible Evidence So Why Wasn’t I Freaking Out?:
1) Soviet nuclear warheads.
2) The Population Bomb.
3) Famine: 1975!
4) A total lack of manganese. (?)
5) Swine flu (classic,) Bird flu, Swine flu 2009: Revenge of The Swine.
6) OPEC buying up all of America.
7) Japanese buying up all of America.
8) Osama bin Laden
9) Chinese buying up all of America.
10) Global warming or cooling or shifting magnetic poles or Yellowstone blowing up or asteroid strikes.
The point is, Brett: a hard rain’s gonna fall and a bad moon is a’ risin. I hope henceforth you will live your life in a state of fearful agitation.
I hate emoticons. They’re also going to kill us all.
In 2083, Social Security outlays are projected to be higher than revenues by 1.1% of GDP. We should have never gotten involved with this ridiculous, lavish entitlement.
Sam,
That is $66 trillion in today’s dollars, in future dollars that number is ginormous.
Exactly when was the last time that Medicare had a reduction in benefits? Last I checked it was an expansion in benefits. I submit that in general, benefits reductions in government plans is going to be alot like raising taxes, politically difficult at best.
Oh ffs.
Yes, Social Security is probably fixable. Raising the wage, raising the tax, raising the limit on income that is subject to the payroll tax and a few other tweaks here and there could probably get it back in balance.
Problem is Medicare. Fix Social Security and yes the fiscal picture gets better, but going from really, really, really bad to merely really, really bad is still….really, really bad. And the fixes for Social Security while they’d help with Medicare they wont be sufficient to solve the Medicare problem. Not by a long shot.
Now go read what is said about Medicare. You keep pointing to Social Security and saying, “Its fixable.” Something I’ve never denied. But when you add in Social Security the problem becomes much, much larger.
Here is how we look at it. Social Security, if you use the infinite horizon case (remember because the math is easier) it is imbalance about $13 trillion or so in present dollars. You look at that and note that GDP is over $14 trillion and yes. With a bit of pain we can fix it.
Switching over to Medicare the imbalance in present dollars is around $85 trillion. Now that is a much, much larger fish we have to fry. That is going to entail more than a bit of pain to fix. Problem is nobody wants to bear any pain at all. And aksing people to bear such pain is likely to be political suicide.
michael,
There you go being an idiot again. No anger (some frustration when dealing with ignoramuses like you, but not anger) and no hysteria. I’ve long accepted that we will likely do as you said, kick the can down the road until we can’t move it any more and things get very interesting. Will we all die? No. Will the sky fall? No. Will we have very high inflation? Probably. Will economic growth drop dramatically? Probably. Will there be lots of people who need care and wont get it? Probably. Will things look worse than today? Probably.
I’m sure there were people with that mind set on October 23, 1929. People got all upset when electronic money disappeared ( the financial crisis). Now I’m pointing out the fact that we are on a path to spend trillions of dollars we don’t have on real things and its no big deal. Thanks for demonstrating your cluelessness again.
Brett,
With a public option raising the age wont matter. And unless you are going to increase taxes alot it wont be sufficient. And by alot I’m talking about something on the order of increasing government tax revenues by 50%. I think at that point we’d see some serious hits to economic growth. Take a look at what you pay in taxes now to the federal government and multiply it by 1.5. If you work the first 3 months of the year to pay for your federal taxes, we are talking about you working 4.5 months instead. That is a significant increase.
Steve:
It seems very important to you to attack me. But I want to reassure you that I don’t echo your hostility. I think I’m probably too clueless and too stupid to care as much about you as you seem to care about me.
Steve:
Here is why projecting 75 years is meaningless. Yes medical costs are unsustainable. The breaking point is, however, MUCH sooner than 75 years. I’m no economist, but it seems to me you are projecting overall debt will be allowed to reach several times our GDP which it won’t. While your overall point of unsustainability is absolutely true, you are trying to do it with a ridiculously huge, completely meaningless number that has exactly 0% chance of actually happening.
We are on pace to face a debt crisis in 10-15 years if we do nothing. There’s NO WAY things will not change in 75 years.