There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage.Just last month, he told us this:
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The Dude is Good
I may have to reconsider my views, inasmuch as President Obama has already reduced the number of Americans without health insurance by at least a third in the past month. From yesterday's speech to Congress:
Wow. That's real progress. I wonder what changed?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
The semantic meaning of the statement, for one. In the first statement, he says that Americans "cannot get" insurance, and in the second, that they "do not have." Leading whoever takes him at his word to understand that 16 million can get insurance, but do not have insurance.
This would be so much more of a valuable comment if I had the energy to look up the stat myself; alas, I do not.
Actually, I know the answer Amanda. Here's a hint -- it's why the Congressman from South Carolina called the President a liar last night.
Yes, Congressman Joe Wilson is a shining example of proper decorum and self-respect, as well as respect for the President. Ah, those emotional, passionate Southerners! He yelled it out when Obama said the plan wasn't set up to insure illegal immigrants - is that part of your stat? Don't be coy, go ahead a post that info. Personally, 30 million sounds like a pretty high number as it is...
I think the president should ram this through whether we want it or not. Obviously health care is a problem and we need it to be solved. Who else is going to solve it other than the government? They're our representatives after all. And sometimes people need to realize that their liberty needs to take a back seat to problem solving.
Don't be coy, go ahead a post that info.
Already did. Click the second link on the post.
Yes, Congressman Joe Wilson is a shining example of proper decorum and self-respect, as well as respect for the President. Ah, those emotional, passionate Southerners!
I applaud the newfound concern with decorum on your side of the aisle, Amanda.
My blog-reading fatal flaw? I'm not much of a link clicker. While I completely respect the way you like to gather opinions and put together posts, as it is your blog (!), when there's a post with a comments from you interspersed with other stories linked throughout the post, I find it difficult to follow. I'm much more of a "here's what I say, and here's my source" kind of reader.
(So when I see a quote here, with a link, I think of it as a source - not a place I have to go to to get the whole story. Just to give you an understanding of why I might comment that way.)
Obama was discussing the fact that the plan is not designed to insure illegal immigrants, at which point Wilson heckled the President. The statistic regarding 46 million people being uninsured, and 9.7 million of them being illegal immigrants, does not mean the plan being put into place is designed to insure illegal immigrants.
As the article states, the number is sloppy, but mostly true, and Obama's team did nothing more evil than lift the stat from the US Census Bureau to get it.
Finally, as far as whether elected Democrat officials yelled out accusations during any of Bush's speeches, I cannot recall an instance, but I'm not reliable, as it was difficult to watch any of those speeches without beating my head against a table or wall.
Mark,
I am very curious to know what was meant by:
"I applaud the newfound concern with decorum on your side of the aisle, Amanda."
Are you aware of fairly recent and numerous breaches of decorum in Congress by Democrats? I am not, and I usually pay attention to such things. The only thing that comes to my mind is the last VP, a Republican, telling a Democrat member of the Senate to go **** himself. But I do love political gossip, so please enlighten me.
Rich
2005 State of the Union address. Democrats were catcalling and booing Bush incessantly when he tried hawking his Social Security plan. All over the internet today. Sure you can find it.
Harry Reid calling Bush a liar and a loser, then apologizing for calling him a loser but refusing to apologize for calling Bush a liar. Heard that one again on ABC Radio News (hardly a Republican source) while I was driving home from work this afternoon.
That's two examples off the top of my head.
Bottom line -- I don't care that much. It's just a bit rich (pardon the pun, Rich) that Democrats are clutching their pearls over some backbenchers screaming "liar." We've been listening to that shit from your side of the aisle for the last 8 years and similar charges (and much worse) have been hurled at politicians since the dawn of the Republic.
As they say in your fair city (and Obama's adopted home town) -- politics ain't beanbag.
And another thing -- it would probably help if Obama wouldn't call his opponents liars when he addresses a joint session of Congress, either. But maybe I'm just being too sensitive.
Mark,
I largely agree, but there is a difference between what some drunk 20 year old says outside a Rage Against the Machine concert, and what an elected official says on the floor of Congress. Catcalls and boos are part of the game on both sides, as is calling another elected official disingenuous at a press conference. But calling the President, or any other member a liar during a formal session, while they are speaking, or while on the floor, is unacceptable, and you know it. There is a reason Wilson was leaned on by the GOP leadership and made to apologize so quickly. And to his credit, he did.
BTW, on the numbers front, Amanda is basically correct. The statements are meant to be taken differently.
The AP has the numbers:
"THE FACTS: Obama time and again has referred to the number of uninsured as 46 million, a figure based on year-old Census data. The new number is based on an analysis by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, which concluded that about two-thirds of Americans without insurance are poor or near poor. "These individuals are less likely to be offered employer-sponsored coverage or to be able to afford to purchase their own coverage," the report said. By using the new figure, Obama avoids criticism that he is including individuals, particularly healthy young people, who choose not to obtain health insurance."
You can read it here, along with several others. Not all good for the Pres.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090910/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_fact_check
Regards,
Rich
Mark,
he said statements that people had made were lies. I didn't her him call anyone a liar.
Rich
One thing I have to remind folks constantly is that President Bush received WAYYYY more criticism (and many more ad hominem attacks) than Obama, yet never told people to stay quiet. Do I condone the incivility amongst members of Congress or, in Rich's example, the VP himself? Certainly not. But I am so amused at these liberal putzes who suddenly claim some sort of moral high ground on such things.
I largely agree, but there is a difference between what some drunk 20 year old says outside a Rage Against the Machine concert, and what an elected official says on the floor of Congress.
Harry Reid is a 20 year old at a Rage Against the Machine concert? Try again.
Maybe his teleprompter is the liar.
Maybe his teleprompter is the liar.
Gives a whole new meaning to the term "Rage Against the Machine."
BTW, any number reflecting "uninsured" Americans is somewhat misleading because it's merely a snapshot. For example, that "uninsured" number includes those people starting a new job who are not yet eligible for health coverage. Also, younger people just entering the career world don't place emphasis on having health coverage and thus decline it initially. Do I think the current system is infallible? Absolutely not. But to put said system in the hands of government bureaucrats? You're out of your freakin' minds if you think we're going to quit "bickering" over that.
Brad and Mark,
For me, it isn't about a moral high ground. It is about protecting the deliberative nature of our legislative bodies. In the House of Commons, a body known for its raucous nature, a member can be suspended for shouting that another speaker is a liar. The Brits have, over the years, found some woderful ways of conveying that message without breaching decorum. My fave is a Churchillism; the old man would frequently accuse his opponents of suffering from terminological inexactitude. But he never violated the ban because to do so would be to abandon the treasured and time tested deliberative process. Calling someone a liar destroys the debating process. The Brits have been smart enough to recognize that, and we should be too.
Regards,
Rich
The Brits have, over the years, found some woderful ways of conveying that message without breaching decorum. My fave is a Churchillism; the old man would frequently accuse his opponents of suffering from terminological inexactitude.
Ah, euphemism! All righty then. Let's have everyone start referring to the other sides "terminological inexactitude." Joe Wilson will volunteer. Meanwhile, perhaps Harry Reid can pick up the white courtesy phone on that one too. And the president as well?
I guess tradition and protocol mean nothing to you. I suppose Conservatism has abandoned Burke altogether.
Rich
I guess tradition and protocol mean nothing to you. I suppose Conservatism has abandoned Burke altogether.
I'll stipulate that plain speaking means more to me than tradition and protocol. But that doesn't mean that tradition and protocol mean nothing to me. That would be, how should I say it? An example of terminological inexactitude?
And I hadn't noticed that I have to hold the banner of Conservatism with a Capital C all by my lonesome. I'm just a guy with a blog, last I checked. And just a guess -- fair Burke wouldn't appreciate your using him as a truncheon very much, either.
And I'd also add that Conservatism didn't end with Burke, either. You'd not like it much if those of us on the starboard side held you to every precept of 19th century liberals like Disraeli. Right?
Rich, I agree with you. Wilson was out of line. He needed to apologize and he did.
But for Democrats to have a cow on this is just silly. They have no credibility. They spit on decorum on a regular basis. Obama himself spat on it by calling the opposition liars. His vitriol is worse in the sense that he's got the bully pulpit and others don't have the opportunity to immediately respond (unless of course they pull a Joe Wilson!)
For the press to make a big deal is even more of a stretch considering the many things they don't bother reporting on. Not least of which are Obama's own truth-stretching in that very speech.
Picklesworth,
we are in agreement on virtually all points. The only exceptions being that Obama didn't call anyone out as a liar. He said that a certain widespread claim about death panels was a lie. And it was. It is an important distinction.
As for the fact that the President has got a bully pulpit and others don't have the opportunity to immediately respond to what he says, I believe a Rep from Louisiana gave a formal response as soon as the President was done. Granted, it doesn't have quite the same affect as a POTUS speech before a joint session of Congress, but that is the political system we live in, and it has served us pretty well for over 2 Centuries. Moreover, thousands of wonks and talking heads have been responding to the speech since the moment it ended, and many have pointed out what they feel were inconsistencies in the Prez's speech. It is all pretty well documented, and there is a robust debate going on...as there should be.
Regards,
Rich
Post a Comment