I wanted to crank this out earlier but with work and school I found myself constrained. Regardless, like many others on Wednesday I tuned in to the President's public speech on healthcare reform.
The first thing I noticed when I turned on my television was the fact that the speech hadn't started and it was already 8:05 P.M. It was reported that the President was running a little bit behind schedule, which I found slightly amusing because I'm immature.
At around 8:15 the President took to the podium and was still receiving an enormous applause. It lasted so long that Obama eventually had to stifle his overt thank you's (he must have said this 20 times in one minute) and urge the crowd to be seated.
The beginning of his speech was a remark about last winter, reminding everyone the state of economic depression we were in, that "we are by no means out of the woods," but that we are on the turnaround. Thanks to homeowners and businesses alike, we have apparently pulled this economy back from the brink.
With the tone set, Obama introduced his primary future building vehicle: healthcare reform. Although not the first to take up such a cause, President Obama stated that he intends to be the last. He expanded upon that fact that in the 100+ years since President Roosevelt called for healthcare reform, through our collective failure, we have continued to place hardships on the uninsured to the point of bankruptcy. The middle class can't get coverage, others can't find it; we are the only wealthy nation that allows such hardships, with over 30 million uninsured according to Obama.
It's not just the uninsured that face problems however. Those with insurance still have very low stability, the audience is told. Insurance companies provide poor treatment for coverage, the costs of healthcare are rising, which is even affecting our business sector. The President told of entrepreneurs stalling to open new businesses because they can't afford proper coverage. He stated that healthcare taxes heavily on programs like Medicare and Medicaid, that "healthcare IS our deficit problem."
Perhaps as rhetorical lead-in the President then asked: how do we reform the system. He noted that on the far Left, there's a single payer system, with the government paying for everyone, and on the Right, the idea is to have the individual pay for coverage on their own. It seems that the President agrees with neither entirely, but would rather build upon what works and fix what doesn't rather than start an entirely new system from scratch. Obama implied the urgency on this cooperation, that the time for bickering is over.
He then provided 3 basic goals:
Security and stability of the insured
Security and stability of the uninsured
To slow the growth of healthcare costs
For the first goal, that of the insured, the President made several points.
1. Those who have insurance won't have to change anything on what they already have.
2. It will be illegal for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition.
3. It will be illegal to for them to drop your coverage when you get sick.
4. There will be no arbitrary camp on the amount of coverage one can receive.
5. There will be a limit placed on how much companies can charge the individual out of pocket.
6. Required routine checkups.
Now for the second, his talking points weren't as regimented, but I got a few:
1. There will be an insurance exchange created for those seeking coverage if they lose or change jobs. Companies will be able to sell and compete for new customers (that in my opinion, they probably don't want) in an open marketplace.
2. For those who still can't afford lower-priced insurance, they will be provided with tax options, which will take 4 years to go into full effect. But those with low-cost coverage and preexisting conditions will have coverage that goes into effect immediately. (Obama cites McCain here and agrees it's a good idea)
3. People will be required to carry proof of healthcare, like a driver's license.
The President then remarked that he understands many are still nervous over reform. He noted that reform efforts will be made to insure illegal immigrants do not get coverage, to which someone in the audience shouts, "Lie!" which I found completely and utterly hilarious, if anything just for the reaction on Nancy Pelosi's face. Obama looked pretty nervous when this happened too, confiding that it's "not true, it's not true."
The President continued by stating "consumers do better when there is choice and competition." Wall street's relentless profit expectations makes companies want to drop the sick in order to better a profit, and the President wants to hold them accountable. He expounded on the possibility of a non-profit public option in the insurance exchange which will only deal with the uninsured.
His driving idea behind reform as stated in the speech is to kill abuse and make insurance affordable, with the public option serving as a "means to an end." He encouraged the Republicans to continue to address any concerns they have, but only in a solution oriented way. He apparently will not tolerate those whose goals are simply to kill the bill at any cost. The President also noted he will not back down on his notion that "if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice, and that no government bureaucrat will get between you and the insurance you need."
Obama concluded that he will not sign a plan which adds to the deficit, "now or in the future, period." He noted that this will all be afforded by the fact that he plans to find savings within the existing healthcare system, referencing that many things in these programs aren't making us any healthier, including Medicare and Medicaid, and are wasting money. He wants to eliminate the waste and fraud and make medicine more efficient. Another reform measure the President wants to enact includes placing a fee on insurance companies' most expensive policies. Finally, the President spoke of malpractice reform, that defensive medicine contribute to unnecessary costs (a point a which the Republicans in attendance finally stood and gave their applause).
How much can we expect this to cost? 900 billion over 10 years. Sounds low to me.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Obama soon to publicly shed light on new healthcare reform bill and its proposals
As many of you may already know through its prominent coverage by various news networks, the President is scheduled to make a public speech tonight addressing his current strides towards healthcare reform.
On Tuesday Robin Roberts of ABC News was able to get an exclusive interview pertaining to this speech and what Americans can expect to hear. Unfortunately, ABC added the video minutes before I created this post and disabled any embedding feature, so I'll have to link to the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl0_CSs43OY
The key question at the tip of everyone's tongue was the first Robin asked: Will the public know whether or not the President is willing to sign a healthcare reform bill without a public option?
Suffice to say the President's response was a bit inconclusive, as he merely noted that "they will have a lot of clarity about what I think is the best way to move forward."
President Obama expounded on the fact however that he has already "given some broad principals and parameters" about his bill proposal, that it should not increase the deficit, it will cover the uninsured, and have insurance reforms so that insured citizens have better protection.
BBC News wrote an article about the video which can be read below:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8244831.stm
The President states his bill proposals need to be concluded upon in an urgent manner, and with cooperation between the Senate and the House he expects legislation to commence by the end of the year. According to the BBC, President Obama has stated the speech will be directed towards the public as well as Congress. He notes "The intent of the speech is to make sure that the American people are clear exactly what it is that we are proposing," and "to make sure that Democrats and Republicans understand that I'm open to new ideas, that we're not being rigid and ideological about this thing, but we do intend to get something done this year."
But the BBC concludes in their article that compromise proposals have already been drawn in the Senate by Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, and in the House, a "prominent Democrat" has stated openly that he will not support a publicly run insurance "scheme," possibly alluding to the fact that there is still an amount of mistrust over these proposals, and that legislative gridlock may presume. (BBC, 2009)
Others are confident however, and feel there remains a general consensus in Washington that reform measures will be approved, specifically in correspondence between the President, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, at least according to Jake Tapper of ABC News in his article: Pelosi and Reid Tell President: We Have the Votes; President Wants Bill Passed Soon, which can be read below:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/pelosi-and-reid-tell-president-we-have-the-votes-president-wants-bill-passed-soon.html
Tapper writes that each majority leader feels confident in his or her relations, despite recent political clashing and discordance over such issues, that both the Senate and House will be able to pass healthcare reform.
Perhaps with those considerations the President it treating it as a "go-ahead" to deliver his speech and seal the deal. Only time will tell, tune in for the speech tonight at 8 P.M.
On Tuesday Robin Roberts of ABC News was able to get an exclusive interview pertaining to this speech and what Americans can expect to hear. Unfortunately, ABC added the video minutes before I created this post and disabled any embedding feature, so I'll have to link to the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl0_CSs43OY
The key question at the tip of everyone's tongue was the first Robin asked: Will the public know whether or not the President is willing to sign a healthcare reform bill without a public option?
Suffice to say the President's response was a bit inconclusive, as he merely noted that "they will have a lot of clarity about what I think is the best way to move forward."
President Obama expounded on the fact however that he has already "given some broad principals and parameters" about his bill proposal, that it should not increase the deficit, it will cover the uninsured, and have insurance reforms so that insured citizens have better protection.
BBC News wrote an article about the video which can be read below:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8244831.stm
The President states his bill proposals need to be concluded upon in an urgent manner, and with cooperation between the Senate and the House he expects legislation to commence by the end of the year. According to the BBC, President Obama has stated the speech will be directed towards the public as well as Congress. He notes "The intent of the speech is to make sure that the American people are clear exactly what it is that we are proposing," and "to make sure that Democrats and Republicans understand that I'm open to new ideas, that we're not being rigid and ideological about this thing, but we do intend to get something done this year."
But the BBC concludes in their article that compromise proposals have already been drawn in the Senate by Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, and in the House, a "prominent Democrat" has stated openly that he will not support a publicly run insurance "scheme," possibly alluding to the fact that there is still an amount of mistrust over these proposals, and that legislative gridlock may presume. (BBC, 2009)
Others are confident however, and feel there remains a general consensus in Washington that reform measures will be approved, specifically in correspondence between the President, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, at least according to Jake Tapper of ABC News in his article: Pelosi and Reid Tell President: We Have the Votes; President Wants Bill Passed Soon, which can be read below:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/pelosi-and-reid-tell-president-we-have-the-votes-president-wants-bill-passed-soon.html
Tapper writes that each majority leader feels confident in his or her relations, despite recent political clashing and discordance over such issues, that both the Senate and House will be able to pass healthcare reform.
Perhaps with those considerations the President it treating it as a "go-ahead" to deliver his speech and seal the deal. Only time will tell, tune in for the speech tonight at 8 P.M.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
CIA and torture...wait they actually do that?
This post is going to be fairly brief, so if you're someone (like me) who has a very short attention span, this one's for you.
The Economist recently published an article pertaining to the CIA and a recent report released (Aug. 24) by the Department of Justice, which includes documentation of suspicious interrogation activities carried out overseas during the Bush administration, specifically between 2000 and 2004. If you're interested, you can read the article and the full report provided by the link below:
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14297027
Eric Holder, an Obama appointee currently serving as the 82nd United States Attorney General, is considering to launch a full scale criminal investigation. An event that would greatly deter from the President's current focus on health care reform and other domestic policy, the Economist states that if trials were indeed to be held, it would be the first time a federal torture prosecution would commence in our nation's history. But according to the article, it is also understood by his administration that Mr. Holder will act independently, and that "the clarity of the law and the nature of the abuses legally forced him to act." (Economist, Aug 25)
It's mentioned that the President, despite his wishes to look forward, is willing to support the prosecution if indeed certain officers acted beyond their realm of duties. There is criticism however, that certain policymakers in Washington who endorsed such activities will not be held accountable, with only low level CIA staff and civilian contractors biting the bullet.
Some of the techniques noted as unauthorized and in violation of American law included waterboarding (a method which involves prisoners to believe they are drowning), choking, threats against family members, slamming prisoners into walls, sleep deprivation, inducing prisoners to vomit by blowing cigarette smoke repeatedly into their faces, and physical threats with handguns and power drills, to name a few.
Certain proponents argue however that these techniques were vital in obtaining crucial information otherwise left undiscovered. Indeed, former Vice President Dick Cheney is mentioned to have thought that the techniques provided valuable intelligence against terrorist attacks. It's unclear exactly which techniques he is referring to, and whether or not they included legal forms of interrogation.
I'm under the impression that the less the average citizen knows about what goes on in the CIA and exactly how they conduct their business the better. Stories such as these don't even come close to revealing the tip of the iceberg that is unauthorized, off the record, strictly classified U.S. government activity. It would be impossible for the CIA to do their job effectively if they had the Dept. of Justice and mass media continually breathing down their neck. If people only KNEW what kind of activities our government has been a part of behind closed doors to obtain certain people and information, it would disgust them. You don't WANT to know. The ugly tactics our government uses serve a purpose, and that is to effectively protect the American people.
Consider Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. Mr. Muhammad just may be one of the biggest assholes ever. He is the man who allegedly formulated the September 11th attacks into fruition. I can bet 1000 times over Khalid didn't suffer nearly as much as those whose lives he cut short on that fateful day.
-------I'm going to finish this rant later. I have to get ready for work. Till then!
The Economist recently published an article pertaining to the CIA and a recent report released (Aug. 24) by the Department of Justice, which includes documentation of suspicious interrogation activities carried out overseas during the Bush administration, specifically between 2000 and 2004. If you're interested, you can read the article and the full report provided by the link below:
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14297027
Eric Holder, an Obama appointee currently serving as the 82nd United States Attorney General, is considering to launch a full scale criminal investigation. An event that would greatly deter from the President's current focus on health care reform and other domestic policy, the Economist states that if trials were indeed to be held, it would be the first time a federal torture prosecution would commence in our nation's history. But according to the article, it is also understood by his administration that Mr. Holder will act independently, and that "the clarity of the law and the nature of the abuses legally forced him to act." (Economist, Aug 25)
It's mentioned that the President, despite his wishes to look forward, is willing to support the prosecution if indeed certain officers acted beyond their realm of duties. There is criticism however, that certain policymakers in Washington who endorsed such activities will not be held accountable, with only low level CIA staff and civilian contractors biting the bullet.
Some of the techniques noted as unauthorized and in violation of American law included waterboarding (a method which involves prisoners to believe they are drowning), choking, threats against family members, slamming prisoners into walls, sleep deprivation, inducing prisoners to vomit by blowing cigarette smoke repeatedly into their faces, and physical threats with handguns and power drills, to name a few.
Certain proponents argue however that these techniques were vital in obtaining crucial information otherwise left undiscovered. Indeed, former Vice President Dick Cheney is mentioned to have thought that the techniques provided valuable intelligence against terrorist attacks. It's unclear exactly which techniques he is referring to, and whether or not they included legal forms of interrogation.
I'm under the impression that the less the average citizen knows about what goes on in the CIA and exactly how they conduct their business the better. Stories such as these don't even come close to revealing the tip of the iceberg that is unauthorized, off the record, strictly classified U.S. government activity. It would be impossible for the CIA to do their job effectively if they had the Dept. of Justice and mass media continually breathing down their neck. If people only KNEW what kind of activities our government has been a part of behind closed doors to obtain certain people and information, it would disgust them. You don't WANT to know. The ugly tactics our government uses serve a purpose, and that is to effectively protect the American people.
Consider Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. Mr. Muhammad just may be one of the biggest assholes ever. He is the man who allegedly formulated the September 11th attacks into fruition. I can bet 1000 times over Khalid didn't suffer nearly as much as those whose lives he cut short on that fateful day.
-------I'm going to finish this rant later. I have to get ready for work. Till then!
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
An evening's treatment to The O'Reilly Factor, minus O'Reilly
As I was milling over ideas and stories to potentially write about as my first blog post this evening I realized that there's not much news related information that hasn't already been referenced or argued upon. To be honest, the reason why I'm getting off on such a late foot for this set of weekly assigned postings is because I couldn't care less about hardly any of the material I skimmed through. As a last ditch effort I fell on the decision that I would tune in to the O'Reilly Factor this evening, which, in case you've been living under a rock for the past decade, is a weekly cable news program under the provision of Fox News hosted by the one and only: Bill O'Reilly. Bill is known for his commanding assertions and the severe scrutiny he imposes on those who disagree with his statements. Whether you like him or not, Bill's public image and instantly recognizable demeanor make him of of the most popular political pundits in the nation. And good for him I say. If you take Bill out of the equation his show is like every other cable news program: boring, unmotivated, and focused only on attacking the opposition, in essence failing to offer any reasonable solutions. Now I'm not saying Bill O'Reilly's show isn't without any of the above mentioned faults, but at least with him there's a residual flair and intensity in the discussions which are included. Check out the videos below as an example.
To me, whether or not you you agree with Bill, his program can occasionally facilitate such heated discussions that are different than other news programs in that they're actually entertaining to watch. I'm not saying that's the function of a news network, but given that they're all so slanted and negative anyway at least give me one that's interesting.
So tonight, I was unpleasantly surprised when I discovered that Bill's regular replacement, miss Laura Ingraham, would be hosting the Factor.
Consider the dismay I immediately assumed when realizing this. Laura's presentation and attitude is so ordinarily bland and distasteful as every other news host that I could hardly muster the courage to continue watching. At least Bill has INTENSITY. He may be incredibly arrogant as times but at least he can be fun and interesting to watch.
But I digress. I carefully watched tonight's program and gathered what I could from the topics that were presented by Laura Ingraham. After an hour my endurance had been fully shocked. Let me break down what the episode consisted of:
I tuned in to the show about 7 minutes late, and the topic ripe with discussion was the current health care debates going on throughout town halls in the states. Now I understand Fox News to take a generally conservative approach in their presentation, but the negativity and partisan finger-pointing blame games here killed me. What this discussion basically consisted of was Laura and her guest representative Dick Morris citing statistic approval ratings to be in decline, that 53% of registered Independents now oppose President Obama. Strong distaste for Obama's government run health care takeover were mentioned, as well as the notion that if the President presses for reconciliation it will be politically suicidal. I couldn't get over how adamant Laura was on attacking the Left. It didn't even seem like see believed what she was saying, but merely felt inclined to say things that would openly criticize the Democrats, just for the controversy. Sorry Laura, but only Bill can do that and get away with it.
The next topic was about Obama's upcoming online speech to school children, with some apparently concerned (the far Right, probably) that the President is using this agenda to radically push his ideals to youngsters. Take a look:
What I unfortunately couldn't uncover was the rest of this topic which included Alan Combes and another woman. How ridiculous it was to listen to the scrutiny and absurd claims these paranoid ladies presented. Just because your in total partisan discordance with Obama doesn't mean his questions are going to brainwash your kids. I was actually impressed with Alan Combes and his reasonable defense. How harmful can the speech be? It's still promoting ethical lifestyles and good citizenship, even if it is coming from the other party. We're all still American.
I can't repeat enough how bad this show is without Bill O'Reilly. The issues are still absurd but at least he's convincing.
What followed next in the show was a purely Conservative propagandist, soft news issue covering Obama's Ramadan dinner. Who cares?
Next on the topic of discussion was Obama's Green Czar and his accused Communist approach, as well as questions like, "Is the Obama administration exploiting 9/11 to promote health care?" Absolutely horrible.
I'm going to wrap it up because the rest of the show was pretty downhill. Topics included such as Moveon.org blaming the media for Obama's declining approval rating, with show guest Bernie Goldberg arguing that in actuality it's because Moveon.org is so liberal and that they feel the media isn't liberal enough. Really boring, partisan, finger pointing stuff.
Actually there is one other part in the episode worth mentioning. The subject matter consisted of a California Congresswoman blaming their state's wildfires on global warming. That's a pretty harmless assumption, right? Wrong. Never mind the fact that scientists have potentially attributed wildfires to global warming for years, the minute a Left leaning Congresswoman makes the assumption Fox News attacks it as farce. An expert on the wildfire topic, Katerine Hayhoe is included here as a guest. When asked by Laura if she agrees to the attribution, she is immediately cut off and forced to listen to anti-liberal nonsense, stuff that didn't even relate to this scientific soft news discussion. Again Laura, only Bill can get away with this.
Bottom line? If you plan to attempt to watch The O'Reilly Factor at all, at least make sure Bill is hosting it, otherwise you're in for a very painful sitting.
To me, whether or not you you agree with Bill, his program can occasionally facilitate such heated discussions that are different than other news programs in that they're actually entertaining to watch. I'm not saying that's the function of a news network, but given that they're all so slanted and negative anyway at least give me one that's interesting.
So tonight, I was unpleasantly surprised when I discovered that Bill's regular replacement, miss Laura Ingraham, would be hosting the Factor.
Consider the dismay I immediately assumed when realizing this. Laura's presentation and attitude is so ordinarily bland and distasteful as every other news host that I could hardly muster the courage to continue watching. At least Bill has INTENSITY. He may be incredibly arrogant as times but at least he can be fun and interesting to watch.
But I digress. I carefully watched tonight's program and gathered what I could from the topics that were presented by Laura Ingraham. After an hour my endurance had been fully shocked. Let me break down what the episode consisted of:
I tuned in to the show about 7 minutes late, and the topic ripe with discussion was the current health care debates going on throughout town halls in the states. Now I understand Fox News to take a generally conservative approach in their presentation, but the negativity and partisan finger-pointing blame games here killed me. What this discussion basically consisted of was Laura and her guest representative Dick Morris citing statistic approval ratings to be in decline, that 53% of registered Independents now oppose President Obama. Strong distaste for Obama's government run health care takeover were mentioned, as well as the notion that if the President presses for reconciliation it will be politically suicidal. I couldn't get over how adamant Laura was on attacking the Left. It didn't even seem like see believed what she was saying, but merely felt inclined to say things that would openly criticize the Democrats, just for the controversy. Sorry Laura, but only Bill can do that and get away with it.
The next topic was about Obama's upcoming online speech to school children, with some apparently concerned (the far Right, probably) that the President is using this agenda to radically push his ideals to youngsters. Take a look:
What I unfortunately couldn't uncover was the rest of this topic which included Alan Combes and another woman. How ridiculous it was to listen to the scrutiny and absurd claims these paranoid ladies presented. Just because your in total partisan discordance with Obama doesn't mean his questions are going to brainwash your kids. I was actually impressed with Alan Combes and his reasonable defense. How harmful can the speech be? It's still promoting ethical lifestyles and good citizenship, even if it is coming from the other party. We're all still American.
I can't repeat enough how bad this show is without Bill O'Reilly. The issues are still absurd but at least he's convincing.
What followed next in the show was a purely Conservative propagandist, soft news issue covering Obama's Ramadan dinner. Who cares?
Next on the topic of discussion was Obama's Green Czar and his accused Communist approach, as well as questions like, "Is the Obama administration exploiting 9/11 to promote health care?" Absolutely horrible.
I'm going to wrap it up because the rest of the show was pretty downhill. Topics included such as Moveon.org blaming the media for Obama's declining approval rating, with show guest Bernie Goldberg arguing that in actuality it's because Moveon.org is so liberal and that they feel the media isn't liberal enough. Really boring, partisan, finger pointing stuff.
Actually there is one other part in the episode worth mentioning. The subject matter consisted of a California Congresswoman blaming their state's wildfires on global warming. That's a pretty harmless assumption, right? Wrong. Never mind the fact that scientists have potentially attributed wildfires to global warming for years, the minute a Left leaning Congresswoman makes the assumption Fox News attacks it as farce. An expert on the wildfire topic, Katerine Hayhoe is included here as a guest. When asked by Laura if she agrees to the attribution, she is immediately cut off and forced to listen to anti-liberal nonsense, stuff that didn't even relate to this scientific soft news discussion. Again Laura, only Bill can get away with this.
Bottom line? If you plan to attempt to watch The O'Reilly Factor at all, at least make sure Bill is hosting it, otherwise you're in for a very painful sitting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)