Is Jon Favreau, the chief presidential speechwriter, going to get a break? The White House has announced that the president will address a joint session of Congress on September 9. A primetime, joint session speech is about the biggest thing a president can do rhetorically and so the pressure will be on to come up with something that's at once inspiring and clarifying. I say inspiring in the sense that Obama needs to bring back hope when it comes to health care, the idea that it's possible to have a future in which people with insurance don't worry about losing it and the uninsured can be insured, where bankruptcy need not look as a possibility over every serious illness. The debate so far has all been about problems, not hope and possibility. He also needs to clarify what he wants, what he would not tolerate and what his plan really stands for. It'll be easy enough to shoot down "death panels" and some of the more ludicrous criticisms of the health care plans in play. What will be harder to do is to explain the public option--if he chooses to even continue to defend it--or to explain how universal care could be achieved without it.
A few months ago, I was skeptical of all the talk that health care was coming together in a more positive way than in the 1990s. You remember all the chat from this spring: Everyone was involved, Congress and not some secret Hillary task force was writing the bill, the president knew what he was doing. I'm sorry I seemed to have been proven right, at least thus far, but I always thought the fundamental facts were the same as in the 90s: powerful interests like the status quo and they won't easily budge. No matter how suave the president, that fact remains.
Maybe he can turn it around with a primetime speech--and that's assuming the networks all take it live, which I think they will. Somehow I doubt it.
I fear we're heading back to the CHIP model, the Children's Health Insurance Program where we bring more groups of the uninsured into the expensive, bloated system rather than fix the system. Hey, it's better than nothing. But it's not universal coverage and it's not the entitlement fix everyone knows our long-term fiscal outlook demands.
Would be very curious to know what my colleague, Jim Fallows, former presidential speechwriter, thinks should go in such an address. Paul Glastris? Mike Gerson? Walter Shapiro? Any other presidential speechwriters of the past want to weigh in on what Jon Favreau has ahead of him?
All President Obama has to do is set the record straight. Highlight how healthcare reform will help those younger than 65 that don't qualify for Medicaid and are hardworking but their employers don't offer health insurance. Use an example of a blue collar All American worker to highlight the issue and debunk all those lies and fear-mongering tactics. Be BOLD President Obama! It is your time to take back control of the healthcare debate and win it back!! http://www.mydochub.com
I think you neglect the fact that Democrats in Congress today, unlike in '93, are personally invested in seeing Health Reform pass. They need to do this politically, there's no choice. The fight over the public option is not the big fight; the fight is whether conservative Democrats will join to get something done.
The reconciliation language illustrated that the WH and leadership are serious about getting something they can build on finished and it'll be universal. I think we're looking at a version of Romneycare from MA passing; not the SF model I think a lot of progressives were hoping for but a great leap forward to build upon.
The issue, of course, is that RomneyCare is bankrupting Massachusetts. If one of our wealthier states can't afford it, what makes us think that the nation as a whole can?
Massachusetts is a thought-leader when it comes to Health Care. There are facilities as good as Mass General, the Mass Eye and Ear, Joselin Clinic, etc. - but there aren't better facilities anywhere. Harvard Medical, along with their Health Policy departments, are right there.
And yet Massachusetts can't make it work. They can't figure out a way to do it without destroying the economy.
The issues will boil down to $ again, and this is where the Conservative Democrats are (rightly) balking.
I'd say its an example of where we bring more groups of the uninsured into the expensive bloated government provided health care insurance system, rather than harming the wider/total health care and insurance system. "Public option", "Universal Coverage", etc. don't amount to the entitlement fix our long-term fiscal outlook demands either, in fact they would be likely to be counterproductive in fiscal terms.
There is simply SO MUCH data for the opponents to work with, I don't see how Obama can win here. Even if he gets it passed, it's a loser.
Let's accept that the cost of Health Care in the USA is higher than anywhere else. It is.
But... where does that money go?
If we slice the pie three ways: privately insured, publically insured, and non-insured, does anyone care to guess on what is the largest slice?
It's public insurance. And, since we all know that the "uninsured" can (and do) already get care at any public ER in the country, they're also effectively "publically insured."
The fact is, the United States already is "mostly nationalized."
And yet our costs are so high. How can that be? Could it be that the United States government is more inefficient (or corrupt) than all of these other country's?
Hi Matt -- Recalling the results of similar explanatory efforts during my own watch makes me hesitate to offer advice to anybody on this score. But I will try to come up with something to meet your challenge. jf
We didn't elect him to talk about school uniforms and midnight basketball. Swing for the effing fences.
Just watch how other countries provide a universal coverage that is better overall than in the USA, and with less than 10% of GDP (compared with 17% here).
He needs to make both a moral and a practical case.
He needs to point out that many of the criticisms of this effort have been intentionally dishonest- and he needs to actually call them dishonest or something like that. He needs to say that his job and Congress' job is to make policy and that only honest debate creates good policy. The talk about death panels and other scare tactics show that some are not committed to having an honest discussion. That's a shame becuase this problem litteraly kills and bankrupts people.
He should point out that the fact that so many Americans believe things that are objectively false about heath-care reform is a serious problem and that he is doing everything he can to fix this.
And he needs the Democrats lined up to be on TV, ready to forcefully make the case that this is what we can and should do. The speech won't matter if the Republican BS spewing machine dominates cable news after the speeech. The Democrats need to be a little more in unison and a little more forceful on TV - Howard Dean can't do it by himself.
And he has to point out that his statements about Medicare not being affected are patently false. Perhaps even a lie.
There is no way to make *any* of these things work without severely changing how our largest cost-consumers (aka "the elderly") are served. It's simply not possible, and he knows it.
So, yeah, let's have an honest debate. Let's start with an honest statement about what services have to change, what services have to be cut, and where the money is coming from.
I think that would be great.
The last time (if I'm not mistaken) a president called for a joint session address wasn somewhere in the neighborhood of Sept. 17, 2001. Obama will be giving his on Sept. 9 eight years later. It seems to me he will be trapped into either ignoring the obvious juxtaposition and prioritizing his domestic agenda over a national memorial moment, or else being hornswoggled into saying something to mark the anniversary, thereby yet again stepping on his own message. I'm not prepared to say which it will be yet, but I am prepared to say that the Right will immediately (and I'd expect, successfully) to whatever of those two high offenses he commits (since whatever he might say will obviously be an apology to the terrorists for building such tall, Looming Towers in the first place, as would be silence). The impact on the health care discussion will be swallowed. (I might be wrong about that, perhaps it will be received as just another blip of crazy on Fox News, but I'm not counting on that.) In any casem this address should have been used to set thestage for the entire debate, followed by as many pressers as necessary to keep things on track, rather than starting with a presser when they weren't really sure of the lay of the land, and now frantically organizing this Hail Mary.
Health care has been an epic presidential FAIL.
,
Why so impotent? Reid has veto proof majority in the Senate, Pelosi has a 70+ majority in the House and Obama lives on Pennsylvania Avenue. All this power and yet when it comes to the most pressing domestic policy they still can't get it up. What gives with this crew?
The Joint Session speech may be Obama's Viagara moment...when he finally stiffens up, but is there anything so far that inspires confidence in you that this guy can translate that into real policy reform? Not me.
Recall Hillary's warning....there is a lot more to governing than pretty speeches.
Since he is speaking to both Houses he must reinforce the fundamental
action of politics in a Republic: Reward and keep your friends and
isolate your enemies. "The health care system in America is spiraling into total failure. When it fails it will fail for all Americans. The great majority understands this. But a few are willing to destroy all for their own factional gain. We will not let them succeed. Not again. Not this time"
The Obama speech needs to inspire and elucidate.
First, the moral imperative to provide at least basic insurance to all citizens of the country
Second, to ensure that no one goes bankrupt because of health problems
Third, that commitment to the elderly and the veterans will be honored and there will be no reduction of medical service to them.
How to do this? A mandate for a basic health insurance package for all with subsidies for the poorest. Health exchange options for those who do not have insurance today and employers not allowed to divest existing health insurance for five years. Cooperatives today to stimulate competition and public option in 5 years if insurance companies do not reduce costs by 5 %. Pay for change by taxing millionaires, reducing deductions rate to middle class and cutting waste.
Fundamental justice of universal access, promoting choice, competition and cost control.
“Keep It Simple Stupid” is the first rule of sales. Of course this president has never been in business or sales. He is a lawyer and he thinks like a lawyer who is trying a case. Good luck with that.
If I were to guess what the American people really want with health care reform, it would be something that can be articulated pretty simply and emerges from some basic American values of fairness and common sense:
1. Every American gets a baseline level of solid health care. No one is left behind.
2. No American need be at risk of financial ruin or bankruptcy because they get sick.
3. The program is manageable and fiscally responsible. Americans want to feel reasonably certain we won’t see mushrooming costs like with Medicare and the prescription drug plan.
A problem with the ObamaCare HR 3200 hairball is that it at best accomplishes one of the three. Interestingly, the Wyden-Bennett Healthy Americans Act (S 391) actually does accomplish all three. Simple.
“Keep It Simple Stupid” is the first rule of sales. Of course this president has never been in business or sales. He is a lawyer and he thinks like a lawyer who is trying a case. Good luck with that.
If I were to guess what the American people really want with health care reform, it would be something that can be articulated pretty simply and emerges from some basic American values of fairness and common sense:
1. Every American gets a baseline level of solid health care. No one is left behind.
2. No American need be at risk of financial ruin or bankruptcy because they get sick.
3. The program is manageable and fiscally responsible. Americans want to feel reasonably certain we won’t see mushrooming costs like with Medicare and the prescription drug plan.
A problem with the ObamaCare HR 3200 hairball is that it at best accomplishes one of the three. Interestingly, the Wyden-Bennett Healthy Americans Act (S 391) actually does accomplish all three. Simple.
We are $1.7 trillion in the hole for this year. If we are lucky, ONLY $1 trillion in the hole for the next year (that is assuming some growth). We are already BROKE. It will take about 3 years to implement this health care bill - build a bunch of federal buildings all over the US, hire an ARMY of federal workers with FANTASTIC benefits, hire a bunch of contractors to do the work we supposedly hired the federal workers for because they are accountable and can ACTUALLY be FIRED, create some software to manage the information which will take untold BILLIONS to implement (over budget and past target date). That if BEFORE anything is actually done with doctors and hospitals.
Multiply the estimated cost by 4 and cut the current efficiency in half. That is what we will get. And, I DO believe we are going to get it.
I don't really understand your concern. He's said over and over that Medicare savings is to come from avoiding procedures and treatments that were not needed. In other words, his contention is that people go through more hoops to get the actual treatment they need and that eliminating the intermediate steps saves money. Maybe you don't think that's accurate. And if that's the case, I'm curious to hear why not. But frankly it sounds rational to me. And it absolutely sounds honest.
Contrast that with death panels, government takeovers, medicare is actually private, coverage for illegal aliens etc etc etc.
That's the context of the health-care debate.
Stick a fork in it - it's dead. Democrats have the majority but the blue dogs want some hope of getting reelected and they don't see that happening voting for this bill.
"Stick a fork in it - it's dead. Democrats have the majority but the blue dogs want some hope of continuing to receive massive donations from PhRMA and they don't see that happening voting for this bill."
There, fixed that for ya.