Flashback, 2004 USA Today:

Since news this month that the United States would receive only half the supply of flu vaccine it expected, Senator Kerry has been characterizing the shortfall as an example of Bush’s incompetence…

Democrats believe the issue has resonance and have adopted the blame-Bush theme as a talking point. Sen. Jon Corzine, D-N.J., on Monday said it was “nonsense” to blame fear of lawsuits for the shortage and called it “indicative of failure to properly manage our health-care system.”

Kerry said botching something like flu shots is a strong signal that you’re not in touch with people’s lives.

Wonder if Corzine discussed the current “failure to properly manage our health-care system” with his buddy President Obama while campaigning yesterday.   Sad to hear that Obama is not in touch with people’s lives.

Back in August, we discussed this a bit when we learned that we would likely have less than half the 120 million doses of vaccine needed this Fall.  Turns out that was optimistic.

From AMA News -

The unexpected delays in producing influenza (A)H1N1 vaccine, coupled with the virus’ rapid spread, have left doctors nationwide scrambling to determine how to allocate meager vaccine supplies, and manage offices full of sick and worried patients and their families.

“People are scared. People are frightened. And they’re feeling like, ‘Oh my God, I need the vaccine and it’s not available,’ ” said John Sage, MD, a family physician and medical staff president at Lutheran General Hospital in Park Ridge, Ill.

As of Oct. 23, around 11.3 million vaccine doses had been shipped to communities across the country, which is “nowhere near” the amount the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expected to have in circulation by then, said CDC Director Thomas Frieden, MD, MPH.

Meanwhile, the H1N1 virus has swelled to epidemic levels nationwide — pandemic globally — with widespread flu activity reported in 46 states by Oct. 17.

People are waiting in line for hours at community vaccine clinics, many of which are reporting running out of vaccine before satisfying the demand.

A much worse scenario than 2004 by far.

Still not thinking this is Obama’s fault… just wishing our politicians would try to just be a bit more consistent and display even a hint of integrity.

Then again… could this be an indication of how great things will be when government has more control over health care in general?  Perhaps Gov. Corzine, Sen. Kerry or President Obama might care to share their thoughts on that…

Three  years ago, Nancy Pelosi discussed her agenda for the House under Democratic leadership:

WAPO 10/6/2006 – House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is thinking 100 hours, time enough, she says, to begin to “drain the swamp” after more than a decade of Republican rule.

<snip>

All the days after that: “Pay as you go,” meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

So clearly the deficit is the top priority according to Pelosi.  Even health care reform must take a back seat to stopping the growth of the deficit.  The deficit can not increase, it’s pay as you go from now on folks, not one dime of deficit increase.   Deficit growth must be stopped at all cost.

Yeah, no increasing the deficit, no increasing… yeah…

No increasing the deficit?

The deficit has gone up over $4,000,000,000,000 ($4 trillion) since Pelosi made  it a priority to not increase the deficit.

And that’s WITHOUT the anticipated impact of health care “reform” Pelosi is pushing.

Is it me, or does it seem like you can not believe anything Pelosi says.

How could we even think such a thing?

The federal government would never do that…

… I suppose one way to convince folks that the government has no plans to intrude in the relationship between health care providers/insurers and patients is to tell health insurers what they can and can’t say:

From WAPO:  The federal government has ordered health insurers to stop telling Medicare beneficiaries that proposed health reform legislation could hurt seniors and jeopardize their benefits.

The government might take enforcement action against insurers that have tried to mobilize opposition to the legislation by sending their enrollees “misleading and confusing” messages, a senior official of the Department of Health and Human Services said in a memo Monday.

Well, I’m convinced….

Not only is it clear that the federal government has no intention of interfering in the relationship between patient and health care providers/insurers, it is also clear that they will forcefully defend their First Amendment rights to freedom of appropriate/approved  speech.

Why are folks upset over this?  Team Obama is just trying to help us to understand that what they are doing is for our own good and confusing messages to the contrary are just not helpful.

Now hush…

When you have a great reader like President Obama, sometimes his melodious oration leaves you with a sense that his message is more significant than the lyrics would indicate.

As such, there is benefit in reading the lyrics so that the urge to just tap your feet and snap your fingers does not distract from the message.

The following transcript is from FoxNews, the comments are of course mine:

Madame Speaker, Vice President Biden, members of Congress, and the American people:

Well said, no dispute here.

When I spoke here last winter, this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Ummm.. no we weren’t.  We were facing the worst economic crises since the Carter administration.  In fact, we never reached the depths attained under Carter.  Would it be inappropriate for me to shout YOU LIE!

We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month, credit was frozen, and our financial system was on the verge of collapse.

Still losing jobs and it could be argued the rate of loss is declining because we are reaching a point beyond which we can no longer sustain the rate of job loss:

As any American who is still looking for work or a way to pay their bills will tell you, we are by no means out of the woods. A full and vibrant recovery is still many months away. And I will not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them.

What specific actions have been taken that have actually created jobs or slowed the loss of jobs?  The “stimulus”?  The vast majority of that money has not even been spent yet.  Any improvement in the economy, beyond the bail-outs that artificially propped up auto companies, has most likely been in spite of all this huge deficit spending instead of because of it.

Until — until those — until those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive. Until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes.

First, by thrive will they be allowed to make a profit and keep it, or be taxed out of business or squeezed to fund health care?  Just curious.  As far as keeping responsible homeowners in homes, are you planning to tell Barney Frank to stop forcing Fannie and Freddie to push mortgages out to folks who clearly have no ability to repay them?

That it our ultimate goal. But thanks to the bold and decisive action we’ve taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink.

Again, what specific actions led to specific results?  I am quite certain you can speak these words with all the confidence of a polished confidence man, that doesn’t make them true.

Now, I want to thank the members of this body for your efforts and your support in these last several months, and especially those who have taken the difficult votes that have put us on the path to recovery.

I also want to thank the American people for their patience and resolve during this trying time for our nation.

But we did not come here just to clean up crises. We came here to build a future. So…

Ah yes… change…

So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future, and that is the issue of health care.

Again?  Where’s the beef?

I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last.

It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform.

And ever since, nearly every president and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell, Sr., in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.

Seems a bit lazy… will this bill provide for full coverage for leeches and tonics?  What is the point of introducing a 65-year old bill except to make some ridiculous political point.

Our collective failure to meet this challenge year after year, decade after decade, has led us to the breaking point. Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle class Americans. Some can’t get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed and can’t afford it since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer.

Agreed… that is a problem.  But what is being proposed by the Democrats is not the solution.  How about taking a look at some of the alternatives on the table that Pelosi and Reid keep denying exist?

Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or too expensive to cover.

Agreed again…

We are the only democracy, the only advanced democracy on Earth, the only wealthy nation that allows such hardship for millions of its people.

Really?  I’ve tried to get health care in Canada.  It is true I could get treatment for my son’s injury, as long as I didn’t mind waiting a month or so.   And what exactly is an “advanced” democracy?  And who decides which democracies are advanced and which are not so advanced?

There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage.

This is fantastic! Why is this not major headlines? Without any change in laws, or programs, or higher taxes, or higher deficits, 17 million Americans got health care this week. This should have been met with a standing ovation.

In just a two-year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage.

Considering about 20,000 Americans lose their job every day under this administration, this should come as no surprise.  How many were losing coverage when unemployment was under 5% (before Reid/Pelosi took the reigns)… you know, back when the Democrats insisted that unemployment was way too high?  Now that it’s doubled, not so much gnashing of teeth.

In other words, it can happen to anyone.

Again, stop the job losses and you will reverse this little trend.

But the problem that plagues the health care system is not just a problem for the uninsured. Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today.

More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job or change your job, you’ll lose your health insurance, too.

Was not a major concern until the job market collapsed.  Now it’s a buyers market (for employers) and they don’t need to offer as much to attract employees.  Instead of taking over health care, how about finding ways to stimulate job growth?

More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won’t pay the full cost of care. It happens every day.

Seriously? There are examples of insurance companies refusing to honor policies that have premiums paid on schedule?  Why isn’t someone investigating this?  Seems like that should be illegal if it isn’t already, but what does that have to do with taking over health care?

One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn’t reported gallstones that he didn’t even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.

Another woman, from Texas, was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer had more than doubled in size.

If these examples happened the way they are being portrayed, and I say “if”  because there have been times when President Obama has run with info he was given only to find the story was fabricated or the facts were wrong; but if true, do we not already have regulatory agencies responsible for stopping this type of practice?  Does it take a complete overhaul of health care to fix these issues?  Of course not.

That is heartbreaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.

Nicely done… tug at a heartstring or two and then insist that the fix to these issues is this giant-sized box of government programs.  If you don’t agree, you must be heartless.

Then there’s the problem of rising costs. We spend one- and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier for it. This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages.

So what are you saying?  Do other countries have better health care, better doctors, better hospitals, better medicine?  Is the problem that we need to improve the care we get or are we looking to lower the cost?  Are there other factors contributing to us being less healthy in this country?  And if health care is so bad here, why does everyone come here if they can afford it.

It’s why so many employers, especially small businesses, are forcing their employers — employees to pay more for insurance, or are dropping their coverage entirely.

And… like I said before, it’s because employers don’t HAVE to give employees incentives to work at their companies.. where else are we going to work.  The problem is not health care, it’s jobs.  In other words: I’s the economy stupid!

It’s why so many aspiring entrepreneurs cannot afford to open a business in the first place, and why American businesses that compete internationally, like our automakers, are at a huge disadvantage.

Aspiring entrepreneurs can’t start new businesses because they can’t afford to pay for health care?  But that will improve after we force them to pay for health care?  You lost me.  Oh, and if anything is stopping them, it’s the uncertainty in the economy and fear of a heavy burden placed on them by the government.

And it’s why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it, about $1,000 per year that pays for somebody else’s emergency room and charitable care.

Unlike the not so hidden tax we will pay under your…  sorry, Pelosi’s plan.

Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined.

So, here’s the plan, let’s add a government health care program for everyone on top of what we pay for Medicare and Medicaid… that’ll solve it.

Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close.

Except maybe that whole 12 trillion dollar debt thing and the steady loss of jobs that is meaning less tax receipts to pay for programs like these and pay off the debt…

Nothing else

Except debt and jobs…

Now, these are the facts. Nobody disputes them.

Ummm.. I just did.  Thinking lots of other folks do too.

We know we must reform this system. The question is how. Now, there are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada’s, where we would — where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everybody.

You mean, folks like you?

On the right, there are those who argue that we should end employer-based systems and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.

Ummm… who the hell said that?  I haven’t heard anyone say that, nor would I expect any conservative to take a position where the government is telling businesses how to run their business.  Why would we want government to tell businesses to not provide health care plans to employees?

I have said — I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both these approaches.

No, they both stink.

But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have. Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.

If only we could believe that you believe what you just said.  But your actions and words to this point indicate that these are just more words.

And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the several — past several months. During that time, we’ve seen Washington at its best and at its worst. We’ve seen many in this chamber work tirelessly for the better part of this year to offer thoughtful ideas about how to achieve reform. Of the five committees asked to develop bills, four have completed their work and the Senate Finance Committee announced today that it will move forward next week.

That has never happened before.

Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses, hospitals, seniors’ groups, and even drug companies — many of whom opposed reform in the past.

And now they are for it because why?  Oh right, payoffs.  So the only bad guys here are the insurance companies now, right?  Here’s a simple solution, probably heard it before:  open up competition across state lines and require insurance companies to maintain some x% of high risk policy holders for the right to operate in other states.  This can be regulated under authority of the commerce clause since it crosses state lines.  There, problem solved.

And there is agreement in this chamber on about 80 percent of what needs to be done, putting us closer to the goal of reform than we have ever been.

But what we’ve also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have towards their own government.

You mean all those Americans who disagree with what is getting rammed down our throats by the far left wing of the Democrat Party?  Those partisans?  Do you include the Blue Dogs Dems in that list?

Instead of honest debate, we’ve seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise.

That would be the Dems, no?  Have ANY of the republican proposals been considered even for a second?

Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.

Well, the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed.

Bickering?  Oh, you mean disagreeing… rolling over is all that is acceptable at this point.

Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do.

Great!  When do we get to see other ideas that have been proposed discussed by Congress?

Now’s the time to deliver on health care.

Amen!

Now’s the time to deliver on health care.

Amen!

The plan I’m announcing tonight would meet three basic goals.

Plan? Announcing tonight?  You mean you didn’t have a plan before?  I’ m shocked!

It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance for those who don’t. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government.

Excellent!  Do we get a chicken in every pot too?

It’s a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge — not just government, not just insurance companies, but everybody, including employers and individuals.

<cough> taxes <cough>

And it’s a plan that incorporates ideas from senators and congressmen; from Democrats and Republicans, and yes, from some of my opponents in both the primary and general election.

Because this is all about you.

Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan.

Yes, yes…

First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the V.A., nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.

Great, nothing will require us to change coverage, got it.  Ummm.. but will employers be able to afford to pay for my coverage AND pay whatever new taxes will be required?  Will they have the option to just drop the coverage and force me into a public option?  isn’t this just a load of.. umm.. word play.

Let me — let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.

Lem me repeat.. “requires” being the key word.  Where’s the guarantee I get to keep my current coverage at the rates I currently pay?

What this plan will do is make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition.

I think this is a great idea…  so now that insurance companies will be forced to accept folks at a loss, how do they ensure they still make a profit?  Oh, right, higher premiums for the rest of us or a supplemental tax we all pay to cover those folks.  Frankly, if that was all we are talking about, I’d be OK with it… let’s make sure everyone can afford the health care they need in a crises.

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 the most.

Good.

They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime.

Seriously?  So if I pay my premiums, no matter what they are, and I run up a trillion dollar medical bill, I’m covered?  Cool…   Oh wait, will this mean we’ll need to bail out the insurance companies in a few years?

We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of- pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick.

Right!  And who will pay for that difference?  Insurance companies?  Where do they get the money?  Or will we tell doctors they just need to accept less money.  Good thing it doesn’t cost a lot of money to become a doctor, it might cause a lot of folks to think twice before pursuing that career.

And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies.

No extra charge over what?  Over current premiums or the new ones we’ll be paying after this gets folded into the coverage.  So premiums go up for folks that don’t want this coverage?

Because there’s no reason we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse.

That makes sense. It saves money, and it saves lives.

Saves lives, yes.  Saves money for the individual, yes.  Saves money overall, no.  The cost of providing the tests for everyone will be higher than the cost of treating those who go undetected until later.  Doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea to get tested, just can’t be pointed to as saving money.

That’s what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan: more security and more stability.

And more taxes…

Now, if you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans who don’t currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you…

… if you lose your job or you change your job, you’ll be able to get coverage.

That will come in handy since it’s likely more jobs will be lost as employers cut back to afford to pay for this health insurance.

If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you’ll be able to get coverage. We’ll do this by creating a new insurance exchange, a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices.

Across state borders?  Good.   Why does the government need to get in the game though, just open up the competition.

Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It’s how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it’s time to give every American the same opportunity that we give ourselves.

But, but… who negotiates?  The government?  No thanks.

Now, for those individuals and small businesses who still can’t afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we’ll provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need.

Tax credits for them = higher taxes for someone…  just wealth redistribution with a fancy name.

And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned.

This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right. In the meantime, for those Americans who can’t get insurance today because they have preexisting medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill.

“We”?  Who is the “we” that will offer low cost coverage and when was the last time ANY government program was temporary?

This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign; it’s a good idea now, and we should all embrace it.

Nope, wasn’t then, isn’t now.

Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those, and especially the young and the healthy, who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers by giving them coverage.

The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don’t sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for these people’s expensive emergency room visits.

If some businesses don’t provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors.

An unfair competitive advantage? In what way?  Should we insist all companies pay their employees the same salary because those paying more are at a disadvantage?  How about other benefits?  And what happens when companies just lay off people to avoid paying for health care?

And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek, especially requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, just can’t be achieved.

That’s why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance — just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.

Every one is NOT required to carry auto insurance.  That’s just not accurate.  If you don’t have a driver’s license, you don’t have to have auto insurance.  You have a choice.  A driver’s license is a privilege, says so when you get the license.  One of the requirement for this privilege is that you have insurance.

Where is the equivalent privilege that gives the government the right to require I carry health insurance?  Is living now a privilege?  And what if I refuse?  What privilege do I lose?

Likewise — likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers.

And fund it by laying off workers…

There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still can’t afford coverage, and 95 percent of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements.

But wait… doesn’t that give 95% of the small businesses an advantage over the 5% of small businesses not exempt?  I thought that was a no no.

But…

But we can’t have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees.

Game the system? Responsibility?  I thought businesses offered health care, pensions, 401ks, etc to attract employees.

Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part. And while there remains some significant details to be ironed out, I believe…

… I believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just outlined: consumer protections for those with insurance; an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage; and a requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance.

And I have no doubt that these reforms would greatly benefit Americans from all walks of life, as well as the economy as a whole.

I missed that somewhere.. how does this benefit the economy?  Via job loses?  Higher taxes? What?

Still, given all the misinformation that’s been spread over the past few months, I realize — I realize that many Americans have grown nervous about reform. So tonight, I want to address some of the key controversies that are still out there.

Some even right on this very stage from our reader in chief.

Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens.

That is not what is being said… this is a distortion to make his point.  Pick one thing, distort it, and use it to discredit all opposition… clever.

Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie plain and simple.

Now, now, let’s not start calling people liars

Now…

Now, there are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms — the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.

Well… apparently it is true.  Learned tonight that federal law requires that government programs that apply to all citizens must also be available to non-citizens, even if here illegally (Fox News’ Judge Napolitano).  So President Obama, who we’ve been told is a constitutional scholar, may not realize this… but he may just be playing with words again: the BILL will not explicitly cover illegal aliens, but federal law will require it anyway.

That’s not true.

Yes it is…

And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up: under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.

Money is fungible.  There is no way to guarantee that this will not somehow fund abortions.

Now, my health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a “government takeover” of the entire health care system.

Your health care proposal has been attacked?  What health care proposal?  You said yourself you are proposing it tonight.  Where can one obtain a copy of your proposal that has been attacked?

Now, as proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly- sponsored insurance option, administered by the government, just like Medicaid or Medicare.

So let me set the record straight here.

My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there’s choice and competition. That’s how the market works.

Always?  Even when you were caught on tape saying the long-term goal is a single payer plan?

Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company.

And without competition, the price of insurance goes up and quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly — by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates.

Right.. so open up competition across borders…  again, problem solved.

Insurance executives don’t do this because they’re bad people. They do it because it’s profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill, they are rewarded for it.

All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called “Wall Street’s relentless profit expectations.”

Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable.

And the insurance reforms that I’ve already mentioned would do just that, but an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange.

Here we go…  a public “option” that will be funded by folks who can’t afford to pay for both private and supplement public and then will move to public because the “choose” to move.

Now, let me — let me be clear.

Let me be clear, it would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance.

Yes it will…

In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up.

On day one…

Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don’t like this idea. They argue that these private companies can’t fairly compete with the government, and they’d be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option, but they won’t be.

Oh?  So who will pay for this?

I’ve insisted that, like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums its collects.

Excellent!  So this public insurance will cover high risk folks, paying out tons of benefits, and keep the premiums reasonable, and do all this without public funding.  How?  Loaves and fish?

But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.

Oh yeah, government programs are MUCH more efficient than private companies.

Now, it is…

It’s — it’s worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort

34% is a majority?  You lie!  Oops.. sorry, slipped out.

I’ve proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn’t be exaggerated by the left or the right or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and shouldn’t be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles.

To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage available for those without it.

I’m confused.  Insurance execs are not bad people, but they are abusive people?  And just who are these progressive friends?  The Progressive Party has typically been on the far left and at times aligned with the Communist Party?  Those guys?

The public option — the public option is only a means to that end, and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.

And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.

Wild claims?  Have you read the bill?

For example — for example, some have suggested that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others have proposed a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan.

These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that, if Americans can’t find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice.

And who gets to define “affordable”?

And — and I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.

And who gets to decide “need”?

Finally, let me discuss an issue that is a great concern to me, to members of this chamber, and to the public, and that’s how we pay for this plan.

Now, Here’s what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits, either now or in the future.

Will you veto it, or just not sign it.  Last I looked, an unsigned bill becomes law in 10 days.  That aside…  there’s no way you can really believe what you just said.

I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit now or in the future — period.

No one believes you…

I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit now or in the future. Period.

Say it again, still won’t believe it.

And to prove that I’m serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promise don’t materialize.

Yeah, and that’s something that will get enforced, sure.

Now, part of the reason I faced a trillion-dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for, from the Iraq war to tax breaks for the wealthy.

I will not make that same mistake with health care.

He’s joking, right?  He has increased the deficit beyond the imagination of most sane people and he wants us to believe he won’t make the mistake of the PREVIOUS administration?  What about his administration?

Second, we’ve estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system, a system that is currently full of waste and abuse.

How about eliminating the waste first, show us the money, and then we can discuss how best to spend it?

Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care don’t make us any healthier. That’s not my judgment. It’s the judgment of medical professionals across this country.

Right, government waste is a major problem, so let’s expand government involvement, good idea.

And this is also true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid. In fact, I want to speak directly to seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue that’s been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate.

In other words.. how dare folks point out that benefits will have to go down based upon the current plan being debated.

More than four decades ago, this nation stood up for the principle that after a lifetime of hard work, our seniors should not be left to struggle with a pile of medical bills in their later years.

That’s how Medicare was born. And it remains a sacred trust that must be passed down from one generation to the next. And that…

That is why not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan.

The only…

The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies…

… subsidies that do everything to pad their profits, but don’t improve the care of seniors.

Simple formula.  less money=less services.

And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead.

Who will the czar for this one be? Kevorkian?

Now, these steps will ensure that you — America’s seniors — get the benefits you’ve been promised. They will ensure that Medicare is there for future generations. And we can use some of the savings to fill the gap in coverage that forces too many seniors to pay thousands of dollars a year out of their own pockets for prescription drugs.

That’s what this plan will do for you. So don’t pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut — especially since some of the same folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past…

Don’t pay any attention to the man behind the curtain….

… and just this year supported a budget that would essentially have turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program.

That will not happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare.

Now, because Medicare is such a big part of the health care system, making the program more efficient can help usher in changes in the way we deliver health care that can reduce costs for everybody.

Then do it.. why is it linked to health care reform?

We have long known that some places, like the Intermountain Healthcare in Utah or the Geisinger Health System in rural Pennsylvania, offer high-quality care at costs below average.

So the commission can help encourage the adoption of these common-sense best practices by doctors and medical professionals throughout the system — everything from reducing hospital infection rates to encouraging better coordination between teams of doctors.

Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. Now, much…

Much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers.

There is no evidence that any of this is true and the CBO says it’s just not true.  CBO says this will add to the deficit, period.

And this reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money — an idea which has the support of Democratic and Republican experts.

And according to these same experts, this modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long run.

Now, finally, many in this chamber, particularly on the Republican side of the aisle, have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the costs of health care.

Now — there you go.

There you go.

Now, I don’t believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I’ve talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. So — so — so I’m proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know…

… I know that the Bush administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these ideas. I think it’s a good idea, and I’m directing my secretary of health and human services to move forward on this initiative today.

Good.

Now, add it all up and the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years, less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration.

Politics, plain and simple.  There is no equivalency here between government funding health care and fighting wars  and the tax cuts were not for the “wealthiest” Americans and stimulated the economy, unlike the current stimulus mess.  If this is not government funded, why will in cost $900 billion?

Now, most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent — but spent badly — in the existing health care system. The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of 1 percent each year — one-tenth of 1 percent — it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term.

Just not true…  CBO says so and the head of the CBO is a Democrat so he must be telling the truth unlike those lying, sniveling Republicans.

Now, this is the plan I’m proposing. It’s a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight — Democrats and Republicans. And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.

How about starting with the proposals already out there that can’t seem to see the light of day?

But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than to improve it.

I won’t stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what’s in this plan, we will call you out. And I will not…

What special interests does he keep referring to?  The American people, the majority of who are opposed to the current proposal?

And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time; not now.

Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow.

No.. the deficit will grow WITH this plan.  Haven’t you been paying attention?

More families will go bankrupt.

That would be because of job loss.

More businesses will close.

Less workers with jobs means less people with money buying things means businesses close.

More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it the most. And more will die as a result.

We know these things to be true.

That is why we cannot fail. Because there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed — the ones who suffer silently and the ones who shared their stories with us at town halls, in e-mails, and in letters.

I received one of those letters a few days ago. It was from our beloved friend and colleague, Ted Kennedy. He had written it back in May, shortly after he was told that his illness was terminal. He asked that it be delivered upon his death.

In it, he spoke about what a happy time his last months were, thanks to the love and support of family and friends, his wife, Vicki, his amazing children, who are all here tonight.

And he expressed confidence that this would be the year that health care reform — “that great unfinished business of our society,” he called it — would finally pass.

He repeated the truth that health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but he also reminded me that “it concerns more than material things.”

This “future prosperity” argument has been made before… and yet it has proven time and again to be a red herring.

By the way, if we plan to use Ted Kennedy for political purposes, it goes both ways… let the man rest in peace.  He was not an honorable man or a saint as we are now expected to believe.  Let’s focus on what’s best for this country, not what Ted Kennedy wanted… he’s gone.

“What we face,” he wrote, “is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.”

One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom, and our healthy skepticism of government. And figuring out the appropriate size and role of government has always been a source of rigorous and, yes, sometimes angry debate. That’s our history.

For some of Ted Kennedy’s critics, his brand of liberalism represented an affront to American liberty. In their minds, his passion for universal health care was nothing more than a passion for big government. But those of us who knew Teddy and worked with him here — people of both parties — know that what drove him was something more.

His friend, Orrin Hatch, he knows that. They worked together to provide children with health insurance. His friend, John McCain, knows that. They worked together on a patients’ bill of rights. His friend, Chuck Grassley, knows that. They worked together to provide health care to children with disabilities.

On issues like these, Ted Kennedy’s passion was born not of some rigid ideology, but of his own experience — the experience of having two children stricken with cancer.

He never forgot the sheer terror and helplessness that any parent feels when a child is badly sick. And he was able to imagine what it must be like for those without insurance, what it’d be like to have to say to a wife or a child or an aging parent, “There is something that could make you better, but I just can’t afford it.”

That large-heartedness, that concern and regard for the plight of others is not a partisan feeling. It’s not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character.

Our ability to stand in other people’s shoes. A recognition that we are all in this together, that when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand. A belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play. And an acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.

This has always been the history of our progress.

In 1935, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism. But the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it.

In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, did not back down.

They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind.

You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom.

But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, the vulnerable can be exploited.

And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter — that at that point we don’t merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.

That was true then. It remains true today.

I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road, to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.

But that is not what this moment calls for.

That’s not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it’s hard.

I still believe…

… I still believe that we can act when it’s hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things and that here and now we will meet history’s test, because that’s who we are. That is our calling. That is our character.

The rest of this was just rah-rah.

Thank you. God bless you and may God bless the United States of America.

Can he say that?

So there you have it, the words without the music… I have my thoughts, what are yours?

Hearing folks like Rep. Gerry Connolly point to Medicare and say things like:

From Yahoo/AP: “Do you think one Republican in this room or one Democrat or one independent would give up his or her Medicare? Not one of them.”

This is meant to show us that Medicare is great and we would all benefit from a similar government run program for everyone.

But even if we set aside the problems with Medicare and make believe all is well, there is still a minor technicality that folks like Connolly are ignoring:

• Medicare provides for a relatively small slice of the population by taxing the whole population
• If the whole population, or close to the whole population, is on the plan, then the ratio approaches 1:1 and we no longer have “government” supplementing health care insurance, we are all paying for it ourselves via tax increases…  except some of us get to pay more to supplement the folks who can’t pay and government gets to control this huge slice of our economy

How does this reduce cost? Improve health care? Benefit the vast majority of Americans?

It doesn’t… it’s just a government takeover of the health care industry.

Part of our economic situation today can be attributed to manipulation by liberal Democrats of the housing market by pushing for high risk loans for folks who could not afford the loans, which predictably led to the collapse in the housing market.  Now they want to manipulate health care insurance to ensure folks who can not afford insurance can have it for free.

We are still paying for their last experiment in socialism, we can’t afford to pay for another one.

Saw this over at Gina Cobb:

On the YouTube site, the Marine has the following statement:

I, David William Hedrick, a member of the silent majority, decided that I was not going to be silent anymore. So, I let U.S. Congressman Brian Baird have it. I was one questioner out of 38, that was called at random from an audience that started at 3,000 earlier in the evening. Not expecting to be called on, I quickly scratched what I wanted to say on a borrowed piece of paper and with a pen that I borrowed from someone else in the audience minutes before I spoke. So much for the planned talking points of the right wing conspiracy.

I think that Marine summed up a lot of the frustration over this whole power grab in a very direct and succinct way. Would have been interesting to hear if the response from Baird had any value at all.

Is it President Obama’s fault we are likely to have less than half of the 120 million doses we need this Fall?

Never occurred to me that we would hold the President of the United States responsible for a shortage of vaccines, but I learned, way back in 2004, that it is the president’s responsibility to ensure we have enough doses:

USA Today 10/18/2004 – Democrat John Kerry opened remarks to a crowd here Monday by saying he heard President Bush had recently talked to seniors about prayer and flu shots. “And that’s the way it works,” he joked. “Under his plan, you don’t have a prayer of getting a flu shot.”

Since news this month that the United States would receive only half the supply of flu vaccine it expected, Kerry has been characterizing the shortfall as an example of Bush’s incompetence…

I never would have guessed…

Of course blaming Obama would be ridiculous.  The point here is that Democrats blamed Bush for just about everything imaginable and now get bent out of shape when anyone says anything in opposition to Obama.

Guess they can dish it out but can’t take the hits…  perhaps we are seeing a new breed: The Glass Jaw Democrats