How do you feel about Obama's speech last night?

[BurtWorm]

Me: To be totally honest, while I agree with many of those on this board who feel disappointed and betrayed by the speech about what absolutely "should" happen with American health care in terms of justice, fairness and plain common sensical economics (i.e, Medicare for all), I enjoyed the speech. I thought it was delivered well--particularly the end of it. I had my expectations down, however. I was not expecting to have my desires for the health care system massaged. I was expecting Obama to use the occasion to take back control of the tenor of the "debate."

I would have been very disappointed if his speech had done nothing but wonk. But even the wonkery, I thought, while far from perfect, was as good as could be expected from a president of the United States. He could have made the point more forcefully that Americans are denied basics that every other industrialized nation in the world takes for granted. But he did make that point. He could have shamed the Republicans more aggressively on their wasteful wars and tax cuts for those who didn't need them. But he did shame them. He could have defended public financing of health care much more whole-heartedly. But he did defend public financing of health care.

So I would say that I felt mostly positive, with some reservations. And you?

[FSogol]

1. His speech wasn't to us, it was to the elderly and the independents. n/t

[SPedigrees]

5. I'm elderly, and independent (as a long time constituent of Bernie Sanders...

and former moderate republican Vermont Senator Jeffords, who switched his party affiliation to Independent after becoming disgusted with the neocons.) In my state we do not register as Dems, Indep, or Reps.

But if Obama's speech was aimed at moi, it hit the mark.

[me b zola]

2. Woo-hoo

I was the first vote. :)

Mostly positive, with a few reservations.

[Laf.La.Dem.]

3. Very good speech

I knew it was a good speech last night but when I started listening to Rush Limpballs - I now know it was a great speech:toast:

[T Wolf]

4. It was a great sppech that indicated that not a god damned thing is going to change

as far as the stranglehold the insurance corps have on us.

To paraphrase MacBeth, "it is a tale full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

At least as far as improving health care in this country.

If only he would use his abilities for good and not bipartisan betrayal of true, Democratic ideals.

[SPedigrees]

7. I think you must have been listening to a different speech than the one I heard. nt

[valerief]

6. Premiums and claim denials will just go up for us all. nt

[tridim]

9. I think you would benefit from actually listening to the speech.

What you said is a flat-out lie.

[T Wolf]

15. Where do you get any indication or quote that supports your belief? The companies will still

be able to deny claims. The only diff is that you must buy a policy from them.

All the restrictions are against the patient.

[tridim]

19. Yea, you already said that and it's still not true

Listen to the speech.

[SPedigrees]

12. "Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage

because of a pre-existing condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime." --- President Barrack Obama

[T Wolf]

13. Where in that statement does it say anything about the insurance corps being limited

in denying claims for payment?

They do now and they will be able to under the new law. Nothing about that problem has been addressed.

[SPedigrees]

16. Um, perhaps you have a reading disability.

Full transcript of speech is here if you don't believe my quotation (message 12) is accurate:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/us/politics/10obama.text.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

[some guy]

37. delete

[BurtWorm]

17. As long as insurance companies exist, they'll be trying to pull shit on consumers.

They need to go. But, alas, they won't be going any time soon. If the Dems and Obama tried for single-payer now, insurance money (which is already flying fast and loose) would get dropped into shit-stirring so fast it would make this summer look like a Quaker meeting. Of course I don't know this for a fact. I just know what they did everytime health care reform came up in the past.

I think they intuitively understand now that if they're allowed free reign to continue as they've been continuing, Americans will lose all patience with them and they'll have a health care revolution on their hands--never mind reform. It's their heads that will be on the pikes.

[uppityperson]

33. Delete as you answered below

[T Wolf]

21. Again - what is "coverage?" Their definition is having a policy, not "covering" i.e., paying a

claim.

They cannot deny to take your premium. They cannot cancel your policy.

But they can deny any and all claims that they want to.

NOWHERE has it been said that they must PAY all claims.

[SPedigrees]

24. it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage

because of a pre-existing condition.

It is illegal for an insurance company to deny claims for coverage now, but they use the 'pre-existing condition' loophole to get around it. This loophole will soon be closed.

Coverage = Medical treatment specified in your policy.

In 2007 62.1% of all bankruptcies resulted from medical expenses, and 3/4 of these people were middle class WITH health insurance. This was up from 46.2% in an identical study in 2001, and these numbers are climbing.

[valerief]

26. I thought coverage meant they let you pay them premiums, not that they paid your claims. nt

[valerief]

23. What does coverage mean? They will take your premiums and continue to deny claims?

Or they will take your premiums and will not deny claims? I heard nothing about claims denial and that worries me.

Just because they won't be able to deny claims because of a cap, doesn't mean they won't deny claims.

[SPedigrees]

25. If you heard nothing about claims denial keep reading (the 1st item below):

"Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime." --- President Barrack Obama

Coverage is that medical treatment, specified in your policy, guaranteed to be paid for by your insurance company.
A claim is an application made by you to your insurance carrier for said coverage, ie payment for treatment, of a medical problem.

[valerief]

27. I wanted to hear the words "claims" and "denial" specifically.

For example, what if you get a policy, pay your premiums, and get sick. You submit a claim. They tell you they won't pay the claim because of XYZ technicality. However, they don't drop your policy. They'll still accept your premiums and promise to pay future claims, which they may or may not based on some other technicality. They are providing coverage, by my understanding of the definition, but they're weaseling out of paying claims.

This is different from having a claim denied and having them drop your coverage because you didn't tell them you had acne.

[SPedigrees]

30. There really are NO other reasons for legally denying a claim

other than "pre-existing condition," and private insurance cos spend more on looking for anything from a yeast infection to kidney stones to qualify as a "pre-existing condition" than they do on all other expenses of running their business. There may be a few other obscure reasons for denial of coverage, such as denying an unproven treatment while agreeing to pay for coverage of conventional treatment, but these are few and far between. The "pre-existing condition" loophole is their only gold mine. It is all they have that they are able to get away with, and they have exploited it to their full advantage over the past decade.

I think you are stuck on a technicality. "Denial of coverage" means refusing a claim for a specific covered illness or injury. It doesn't refer to a person's subscriber status, ie whether he/she is still "covered" by their insurance. That is referred to as "dropping your coverage."

[valerief]

31. Interesting. I hadn't realized that it was the pre-existing condition that allowed most

claim denials. Thanks!
:hi:

[uppityperson]

35. Denying an RX because it is more expensive than another one

even though the other cheaper one may not work, or work as well, or be what is prescribed. I had to get a waiver for my insurance to pay for my Armour (natural) thyroid since it "wasn't on their formulary", when the synthetics didn't work for me.

Denying a treatment because it is not approved by them, like my insurance co denies physical therapy except in a very limited case (knee resection). Or massage therapy in many states.

thanks for what you wrote there, appreciate your taking time to help clear up a technicality.

[SPedigrees]

39. I'm sorry that my first reaction was to presume that everyone knew

about the pre-existing denial syndrome with these corrupt insurance cos. I apologize for my initial impatience with several posters. I'd recommend viewing the Michael Moore film "Sicko." (It will make you sicko for sure to see what the insur cos get away with!)

Typically the insurance cos only bring out their "big gun" ie the "pre-existing" loophole when faced with a claim from a client for very expensive and lengthy treatment, such as for cancer or a kidney transplant.

It's very frightening to know that having good insurance coverage doesn't guarantee health care if you get catastrophically ill while still too young for medicare to kick in.

[valerief]

41. Oh, pooh, don't apologize. Thanks for explaining. Most of us are pretty thick-skinned

and often just as impatient!

:hi:

[uppityperson]

43. Don't presume and don't worry about apologizing here. Thanks for the info

I am a health care provider who learned how to bill so insurance would be more likely to pay. I started working back before there were all the codes, the (oh dang I am tired) limitations on stays, etc. First nursing job I had was on a medical floor where "patients" stayed for months and months and months, waiting for nursing home bed to come open.

It needed to change, but went too far the other way, overly restrictive. I have worked enough, lived enough, read enough, heard enough, to very much hate for-profit insurance companies. Legalized gambling. I tell people to realize that your insurance co is NOT working for you, but is there to make money by taking your payments and denying payments out in return.

Odd thing that when I was pregnant, Blue cross never received my claims in the mail unless I sent them certified, signature needed. Even doing an experiment of mailing 2 envelops from the same place, same time, the regular stamped one would get lost, the signed for one would get received.

It's not just stories, just fictional writing (eg Grisham tales) but reality.

[branders seine]

38. "we offer a policy, which you are free to buy, that covers your particular

preexisting condition. It costs merely $5000 per month."

We are not denying you coverage. You are free to buy this plan.

"Due to increased administrative costs, we are raising your premium to $5000 per month. This has nothing to do with your recent claim."

[valerief]

42. Ha! Yeah, I'm laughing now--to keep from crying! nt

[Doctor_J]

8. DIsappointed with the message, loved the presentation

Seriously, if we can only BEGIN to get reform 4 YEARS FROM NOW, we're in trouble.

[JTFrog]

11. Imagine if we had gotten that far a few months into Clinton's first term.

This wouldn't even be an issue today.

Instead we ended up with a big fat nothing. And yet we still have a ton of fuggin idiots around here saying we shouldn't even take this first step and should go with a big fat nothing again.

Unbelievable.

[johnaries]

10. I thought it was a GREAT speech, but I do wish that the Public

Option would play a greater role than he outlined. I know that it is the major sticking point for a lot of people and so I'm assuming he had to "downplay" it's role in order to ease the fears of it's opponents. But it's obvious from his "I won't back down" statement that he still strongly supports it. He did encourage all of us t be able to listen to other alternatives with an open mind and be willing to consider them if they work as well, but in his defense of the Public Option he implied that at least so far nothing offered would work as well.

I know a lot of people are skeptical about being able to pay for this with savings realized in eliminating waste and fraud, but I firmly believe that there is a lot more waste and fraud than people imagine and that it will supply the needed funds. And by letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire we'll gain lots of revenue to counter the deficit (especially since the rich are so much richer now because of them). Further, by boosting the economy, once the economy is booming tax revenues will increase by leaps and bounds, as well.

So I am not at all concerned with finding the needed funds.

[ThomWV]

14. I was looking for much stronger support for the Public Option

and I was looking for the Public Option to be available to anyone and everyone who wished to buy into it - Oh, and I sure as hell don't expect the law to be passed now but the plan to have to wait 4 years, that was pure bullshit.

[frebrd]

18. Great speech, but any plan will be meaningless w/o a public option....

and any public option will be meaningless if it's only available to those who can't afford for-profit insurance. It's just one more small step to sweep it out the back door completely. I imagine that's next.

:(

[BurtWorm]

20. We don't really know what's next.

What must NOT be next is more of the bullshit that went down this summer. The Republicans have made it totally clear that they're not part of this debate. They have no ideas. They want only to see Obama and the Dems fail. They should be cut out of the picture entirely, and the next phase should involve more pressure from the left for total reform. What's more disheartening to me is not that Obama didn't sound more like a DUer. It's that so many DUers are sounding so fucking *defeated.*

[flaminbats]

22. IMO Democrats have another opportunity to turn the tide!

polls show people now overwhelmingly support universal healthcare, members of Congress..like Kennedy who work to improve legislation, and Obama for confronting the dirty lies being pushed by the Republican party.

I liked Clinton's healthcare speech a little more because it focused mostly on the positive reforms included in his legislation, yet Obama directly confronted the negative misconceptions and partisan rhetoric about his proposal. Democrats in Congress need to know the ball in their court now! Democrats need to strike things out of the legislation..like making the uninsured and under-insured wait four more years for reforms to begin. Democrats need to remember that passing nothing to expand coverage and outlaw insurance discrimination would only give Republicans a Congressional majority in 2010. Democrats need stop holding town hall meetings that allow lynch mobs to use profanity and scream at others who really have questions!

In other words..stop giving these Republican sore losers free publicity, and refocus the debate on those who are now suffering because of preexisting conditions or a disability. And spread the word that benefits now available to members of Congress would be available to every American..only if reform passes.

[tinrobot]

28. Positive because it puts momentum on our side.

A few reservations because I'm not sure the final plan will be strong enough. Gotta wait and see on that.

[rhett o rick]

29. # 7. Not what I wanted but more than I expected. I think he is doing what he can. nt

[Fire1]

32. Very positive. n/t

[mmonk]

34. He could have left out the lecture to his "friends on the left".

I've been lectured to enough the last decade.

[guitar man]

36. I'm pretty positive about it

What I am still wondering is, what is considered "affordable" coverage from my employer, because what I have now is breaking me. Also, what is going to happen between now and the time the law goes into effect? I have a family that needs relief from insurance costs right now, not in the future. Will the insurance companies be able to shaft us with jacked up rates between now and when the law goes into effect? I have a feeling they will grab for every dime they can from desperate people betwen now and then, it's what they do best.

[scarletwoman]

40. "Other". I can't be disappointed because I didn't expect anything but an elegant apologia

for doing little more than tweaking the status quo to begin with.

I can't feel betrayed, because I knew from the moment that he chose Rahm Emmanuel as his Chief of Staff that Obama was going to hew to the DLC, "Third Way" line.

He gives great speeches, I'll hand him that.

sw

[Skittles]

44. yup