The Big Obama Administration Thread

Remove all ads!

NOG - If you wish to be that specific, it is put together in several committees, House Ways and Means, Senate Finance Committee, etc, and then voted on by committee members before a bill is taken to a full vote in either house. I understand that there are a number of committees working on the bill, and if you wish to know who in committee is voting for or against the measure, that info is available online.

I received an update from MoveOn which indicated that the House bill will be voted on by the full house next week. But the Senate still has some issues. If Nancy Pelosi wishes to delay the House version of the bill, she can do so until the Senate is ready. We should find out next week.

 

Drew,

I agree with everything you are saying, but that doesn't make me like the speech anymore than when I first heard it. If you have nothing new to offer the American public in regards to what health reform will look like - even if it's not your fault that the information is unavailable to you - then what is the point of delivering the speech?

At the very least, Obama jumped the gun here. He should be giving that speech when both the House and Senate are close to completing their bills, when he can advocate for, and give specific arguments and reasons for different parts of the bill. The speech the other night was a snoozefest. The only thing I can compare it to is someone trying to sell you a car without showing you the actual car.

It wasn't a news flash or deserving of a primetime TV slot, to tell America that our health care system sucks, is broken, costs a ton, runs inefficiently, and is badly in need of reform. Tell us something we don't already know. That's why I didn't like the speech, and the reasons why he didn't have any specifics don't really matter to me. If you had nothing new to say, and the bill wasn't anywhere near ready to be passed, he shouldn't have given the speech at all. Don't waste my time. (To be fair, at the time he made the speech he did not know for sure that the bill definitely would not be ready before October, although he certainly did know for sure it would not have been ready before the end of next week.)

I may not have liked Obama's speech, but that's just cliche. While I agree that there are some items Congress should NOT get involved in, some things are so big that only Congress can deal with them. Health care ALREADY IS "convoluted, complex, and unworkabe". There is absolutely nothing "straightforward and simple" about it. Holding Congress to this standard when it comes to health care reform is completely unreasonable.

 

Oh, I agree with you completely on this, but that wasn't my point. Sure, the result is going to be complex and convoluted and may just be unworkable, but that's as much due to the nature of the problem as the nature of the people trying to fix it. My point was, with a track record like that, you don't blindly endorse something. Obama has pushed this bill, even though he doesn't know what's going to be in the finished product. With a group like BioWare, I have no problem pushing something before it's seen, simply because they have a good track record. With a group like Congress, that's not even close to being true.

Chandos, I was kind of trying to show how little we knew about the background of this thing. Like I said earlier, usually a very few people (less than a handful) decide the bulk of the form of the bill (things like will it be a single payer system, will participation be mandatory for anyone, etc.) while a lot of others just nod their heads or suggest wording changes. If those few people are reasonable moderates of both parties who have been working on healthcare reform for decades, then it's a promising sight. If they're extremists (probably liberals, not conservatives, all things considered) who just want to push through their own agendas, this thing may well become the next Patriot Act, especially if it's pushed through before anyone's had a chance to really read it.

 

You see, this is exactly why I think he delivered that speech. A growing number of conservative pundits are spreading tons of misinformation about what Obama intends to do, crying out that his plan is "socialism", that it will "kill us", that our system works great while the systems in Canada and the UK are horribly broken, etc. Obama needed to go out there to dispel the ridiculous notions being foisted upon otherwise reasonable people who simply don't have the time or resources to do the research necessary to realize that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Leilly are full of **** on this one. He needed to go out there to remind us all of what the plan isn't just as much, if not more, than he needed to remind us of what the plan is.

 

This one?

 

This is an issue I care very much about and I get updates on this just about everyday. I've been waiting for this reform for almost 20 years. What is it that you want to know?

 

@NOG,

OK, I understand what you're saying now - that certainly wasn't clear from your previous post. It certainly looked like you were saying that what we have now was straightforward and simple, and as soon as Congress got it's grubby hands on it, it will become convoluted, complex, and unworkable. The only other thing that I would like to add is that even though Congress has royally balled things up in the past, they are also the only solution here. The insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are not going to change on their own.

(As an aside - I am surprised that we don't see MORE insurance and big pharma in support of this - wouldn't they greatly expand their customer base? Especially the big pharma - what's the downside for them?)

Drew - generally speaking, the people who regularly listen to Limbaugh et. al. are also the people who think Obama isn't an American citizen. I don't think Obama can win those people over no matter what he does.

 

A fairly reasonable conclusion, but I doubt Obama would so easily write them off. Irrational fear was one of the main reasons Clinton's reform had to pass, so I doubt Obama is willing to allow these ridiculous accusations to stand unrebutted. Moderates bought these ridiculous accusations hook, line, and sinker last time, so there is reason to believe they will do it again.

 

As an aside, according to Wikipedia, Hawaii was admitted to the union on August 21, 1959. If Obama had been born two years earlier, and was not born on a military base in Hawaii, such as Pearl Harbor, would he be allowed to run for President?

So the question really boils down to can you become a natural born US citizen ex post facto, by the territory you were living in later becoming a state?

I have to imagine that there is some law on the books governing this. I imagine that as America expanded east to west there must have been instances where people were born in what were then US territories that later became states. Are people born in US territories considered US citizens? If so, then are people from the US Virgin Islands, Guam, Puerto Rice, et. al., eligible to run for President?

 

Don't suppose you can get me any info on what's actually being proposed for the bill (in committees), can you? If not, the biggest writers of the bill (who's actually contributing) and a little history on them would be nice.

The funny thing is I seriously thought about adding something like:
"What makes you think they'll do any better on an issue that's already complex, convoluted, and possibly unworkable?" but thought it'd be overkill.

That depends, was one of his parents a US citizen that had lived in the US (or been on active duty) within the past 5 years (or something like that)? If so, yes. If not, I don't think so.

I seriously doubt it.

Everything I've seen just says "born within the United States". As US territories are officially part of the US, I'm guessing that means anyone born in them is a US citizen, but I'm not sure.

 

Well Obama's mother was definitely a US citizen - she was born in Kansas. So let's change the question around: Would someone who was born of Hawaiian parents prior to 1959 be allowed to run for President today?

I don't know either. I know they are citizens, but are they considered natural born naturalized citizens? I know military bases in foreign territories are considered US soil, so it would seem logical that US territories would be US soil, but it's not like those territories get any representation in our governmnet, so I'm unsure if there are a separate set of rules governing the citizenship as well.

 

NOG - Atm, the bill is in the Senate Finance Committee, which is headed by Senator Max Baucus. You can find out more about his background and history on his official website.

Also, here is a White House link to the president's own ideas on health care reform.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health_care/

Edit - Here's how matters stand in the House:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32128567#32126747

 

I am. Puerto Ricans are US citizens by birth. Because Puerto Rico is a territory, their votes in national elections don't count and they don't pay federal income taxes, but when they come to the US, they can vote, they are subject to the income tax and, yes, all Puerto Ricans born after January 13, 1941 are considered natural born citizens and can run for president. The law granting naturalized status to Puerto Ricans born in 1941 was actually passed in 1952, so at least in the case of Puerto Rico, we granted natural born status retroactively.

Yes. Hawaii was still a US territory prior to statehood -- we annexed them in 1898. Natural born status was conferred to everyone born after April 30, 1900.

 

8 USC sec. 1401(g)

So next time you meet one of those racist birthers, let 'em know.

 

Thank you Drew. Thank you Chandos.

Actually, I'm quite encouraged by who is heading the Senate committee covering Health Care, though I'm worried he may be subject to conflict of interest claims. He seems like quite the reasonable moderate from his Wiki page.

I'm not so sure about the MSNBC link, though. It doesn't seem to be anything more than "We're working on it" and "We can afford it because we can't afford the alternative" without actually giving much real info. Thanks for the effort, though.

 

This may go down as my favorite Day by Day comic of all time. Once again I'm not sure if I should put this here or in the universal health care thread. Enjoy.

 

TGS - The person who made that piece of crap is obviously misinformed about how our current system of health care works. We already have health care rationing, and in fact we have a significant number of citizens who have none (you can't get more "rationed" than that).

Here is real debate over the lack of free market principles in the current system of healtch care, rather than a comic strip that has no command of the issues of the debate over how the lack of free market principles affect it. Enjoy!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32128567#32125420

 

The problem is healthcare choice? Seriously?

Because if there's one thing employer-provided care gives us, it's choice. Yeah.

 

I agree that most employers offer only a take-it-or-leave-it plan. You have one option, and the only "choice" you are given is whether to opt in or opt out. My employer is unusual in that they have two teirs of health plans - one is rather cheap and offers minimal benefits, but is popular among younger, single workers who generally need little health care, and the other one is much more expensive but provides better benefits, and anyone who has their family on the health plan generally selects that one.

I agree that having a government option that does not exclude on the basis of pre-existing conditions will allow some people who currently do not have insurance to get it. However, I think the problem is even with a government option, it's not like everything is going to be A-OK. The concept of "choice" functioning the best in a free market economy doesn't really apply to health care, simply because people do not buy health care like they buy any other commodity. The reason for this is simple: the line between "need" and "want" when it comes to health care is blurry.

This is probably better explained by example. I may "want" to drive a BMW to work, but all I really "need" is a car, and my Honda gets the job done just fine. I may "want" a flat-screen high definition TV, but my 10-year old color TV is sufficient, and I probably wouldn't consider an upgrade so long as my current TV continues to function. (In this case you could argue that I don't "need" a TV at all, but the point I'm making should be clear.) However, when it comes to health care, when the choice may be a matter of life and death for you or a family member, people "want" the best that is available to them, because there is a chance that at some point they may "need" the best.

So while I agree in prinicple that something is better than nothing, I still see there being a big difference between what kind of health care people receive - especially since the poorest will get the lowest level type of coverage.

 

I've just come across a site that purports to provide the current bills (not-finalized), and looks pretty reliable to me. The reason I'm sceptical is because it's a very partisan and critial web-site. Still, that shouldn't impact the actual bills themselves.

Here's the link to the proposed bills. If anyone can find any problems with them, or any indications they are inaccurate, please tell me.

Looking through the bills, I'm a little worried about one thing. This is going way beyond providing a public option, and actually intends to regulate the health-care industry through an incentive program. Private health insurance providers have to meet a slew of requirements, some of them downright ridiculous (they can't refuse coverage of a person based on current drug abuse!), or they forfeit the public moneys this plan will provide. Now, there can still be private health insurance providers that don't meet those requirements, but they'll be facing steep competition from blatantly inferior plans because they don't meet the government requirements for subidies.

This is my initial reaction after having gone through just the first ~50 pages of a 1000+ page bill. And that just the Senate version. I'm hoping this doesn't get rushed through Congress, because if it does, odds are very low any of the public will have any chance to read it.