Political Hotsheet
September 2, 2009 12:23 PM

Obama Up Against Ideology More than Specificity

(AP)
Here comes Labor Day and with it, the return of Congress. It has the White House looking to shake up its strategy in order to get the president's health care plan enacted before year's end.

"The president is considering all of his options on how to advance the debate and get reform passed," said a White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

In recent weeks, the White House was taken aback by the ferocity of opposition to its health care plan as expressed to members of Congress of both parties during their town meetings last month with constituents.

To the extent there were any dog days of August, the dog turned out to be a pit bull.

And yesterday's CBS News poll provided the White House with stark new evidence that despite it's best efforts, 60 percent of those surveyed say President Obama has failed to clearly explain his plans for health care reform. Asked if they understand his ideas, 67 percent said "no, they're confusing." (Read more from the poll here)

But it's not for lack of trying. Our CBS News tally shows that Mr. Obama has given 27 speeches specifically on his health care objectives. Add in other remarks, events and statements in which he mentioned health care and the number soars to 119.

Mr. Obama is said by aides to be considering a big speech as early as next week to lay it on the line to Congress with more specificity about what he wants in a health care bill.

But an examination of his most recent speech on health care on August 20th, shows that he's been very specific about the provisions he wants in a health care bill.

Health Care Exchange: "We're going to have a marketplace where people can select the options that work best for them, the insurance plan that works best for them."

Government-run Health Insurance Option: "if we have a public option in there, that can help keep insurers honest; it can provide a benchmark for what an affordable basic plan should look like."

Pre-Existing Condition: "...insurance companies can't prevent you from getting health insurance because of a preexisting condition."

No Caps on Benefits: "There shouldn't be lifetime caps or yearly caps where you bump up against it and suddenly you've got huge out-of-pocket costs that drive you into bankruptcy."

No Loss of Coverage: "You should be able to keep your health insurance if you get sick or you lose your job or you change jobs."

Medicare: "We are going to make Medicare more efficient, guaranteeing today's seniors better benefits than they have right now."

Medicare Rx Coverage: "We're going to make sure that that doughnut hole in the middle of their prescription drug plan, that that doughnut hole is closed..."

Mr. Obama has been specific, though he left it to Congress to draft the legislative language implementing his objectives, and that's proved to be his problem.

And based on growing public opposition to his plan, the problem he's up against is more ideology than specificity.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care


(CBS)
Mark Knoller is a CBS News White House correspondent. You can read more of his posts in Hotsheet here. You can also follow him on Twitter here: http://twitter.com/markknoller.

Tags:
Barack Obama
Topics:
Health Care
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 47 Comments
by corky181 September 9, 2009 9:40 PM EDT
I think that it is time for our president to get off tha campaign trail and start doing the work of the president.Go to the White house and do the job that He was elected to do.
Reply to this comment
by spudder8 September 3, 2009 5:47 AM EDT
When will he realize that he is the one who causes his problems not everyone else. Go ahead Obama blame somebody you do not want to accept the results of your actions.
Reply to this comment
by democracy1 September 2, 2009 10:18 PM EDT
The ideology that President Obama has to fight can be summed up in the recent instance of the Governor of Idaho, Rex Rammell, laughing about a reference to assassinating Obama and attempting to excuse it as a "joke".

As much as many people disliked President Bush, I cannot recall a single instance of an elected politician ever making a joke about assassinating him. "Jokes" about the assassinating a President of the United States, by their very nature, are not at all funny, no matter which President they are directed toward. And they are certainly unacceptable coming from an elected official.

The fact that people feel that they can brush off such things as a "joke" against President Obama is very telling as to the nature of the people who are against him.
Reply to this comment
by democracy1 September 2, 2009 9:41 PM EDT
The ideology that President Obama has to fight can be summed up in the recent instance of the Governor of Idaho, Rex Rammell, laughing about a reference to assassinating Obama and attempting to excuse it as a "joke".

As much as many people disliked President Bush, I cannot recall a single instance of an elected politician ever making a joke about assassinating him. "Jokes" about the assassinating a President of the United States, by their very nature, are not at all funny, no matter which President they are directed toward. And they are certainly unacceptable coming from an elected official.

The fact that people feel that they can brush off such things as a "joke" against President Obama is very telling as to the nature of the people who are against him.
Reply to this comment
by jimmyc1955 September 2, 2009 9:13 PM EDT
Lets cut to the chase

We can't afford this right now. We have just added 9 trillion in new debt and the CBO is saying this will run will in excess of another $10 Trillion over 10 years (interesting that it won't go into effect until AFTER then next presidential election - when the costs will skyrocket.)

And no - it is not an option - you have to have insurance - you can't opt to not have it. So you must BUY it unless you can't afford it, and then you get the public option. But guess what? The insurance companies will quickly dump people they don't want by uping their insurance premiums. Small companies will be forced to cover employees who may not have the income to make that payment. They close putting more people out of work and on the public insurance option.

WE CAN NOT AFFORD THIS! We are already one of the worlds largest per capita debit countries. Pelosi and company are spending so fast it is making Bush look like a penny pincher - and we hated him for his spending.

You will bankrupt your grand children's grand children's future so you can feel good about yourselves.

Get a grip - lets talk about it and evaluate all the options - this isn't an evaluation - this is a railroading of a plan we know nothing about.
Reply to this comment
by slownewsday_5 September 2, 2009 11:31 PM EDT
I hope you don't support the wars, then, 'cause we couldn't and can't afford them.



.
by kiawest September 2, 2009 5:33 PM EDT
There is NO one bill and right before one is passed, people fear all those things they know the majority don't want will be added, such as insuring illegals and bankrupting the country. Obama's problem is he appears dishonest and people don't think he can be trusted. My family has already been effected in careers because of the congress and white house stances and support of one industry and bad mouthing and killing another industry. We Americans are struggling and Washington is making things worse. Obama's ideas are not mainstream, they are radical and spend, spend, spend. With all the miscommunications or lies, whichever it is, he needs to build trust. Getting special interest groupds to attack citizens don't build trust. The majority just don't trust him and don't agree with his agenda. No, I don't think rethinking and repitching will help. Washington just don't get the majority of the people.
Reply to this comment
by wmb1957 September 2, 2009 3:46 PM EDT
The insurance companies have been saying for a long time if insurance coverage was mandated with a verification system in place, they would stop recissions and non-coverage of pre-existing conditions.

They said it once again in their testimony in July 17th, 2008 to the House Oversight Committe. They have been saying it since at least 2006.

They proposed it as a state initiative at first, saying that if a state required universal coverage, they would do it in exchange for mandated coverage, and even had it for those states that didn't want universal coverage but handled differently.
Reply to this comment
by wmb1957 September 2, 2009 3:46 PM EDT
The insurance companies have been saying for a long time if insurance coverage was mandated with a verification system in place, they would stop recissions and non-coverage of pre-existing conditions.

They said it once again in their testimony in July 17th, 2008 to the House Oversight Committe. They have been saying it since at least 2006.

They proposed it as a state initiative at first, saying that if a state required universal coverage, they would do it in exchange for mandated coverage, and even had it for those states that didn't want universal coverage but handled differently.
Reply to this comment
by rightbehind September 2, 2009 3:10 PM EDT
Actually the article should have said "failed ideology". The majority of this nation want public health care. Bring on the vote. Pass or fail the voters will have a choice to make themselves in 14 months coming the 2010 elections. I would rather a good bill fail than have a bad bill pass. Write a good bill and vote on it. We either get public health care or we get a list of politicians to send packing. I'm good with either. If it fails we clean up our ranks and go for single payer in 2011. Bring on the vote!
Reply to this comment
by speakinup23 September 2, 2009 2:13 PM EDT
The above article doesn't address how he will pay for what he wants to do. Obama HAS talked about it - so why isn't it here CBS ?

MANY of the above items will make insurance more expensive. Insurance companies are actuaries that give you a cost for a certain coverage that you ask for. He's asking for more, it will cost more.

WHERE'S the money coming from ?

THIS IS THE REAL STICKING POINT !


We would ALL LOVE to give away free medical for EVERYONE in the world, but it can't be done if you are fiscally responsible.

REMEMBER - he promises no new taxes. And, he'd BETTER be aware of inflation.
Reply to this comment
by slownewsday_5 September 2, 2009 2:15 PM EDT
"We would ALL LOVE to give away free medical for EVERYONE in the world, but it can't be done if you are fiscally responsible"


Explain why you trust the government to spend wisely in the wars, then.

You can't have it both ways.


.
by slownewsday_5 September 2, 2009 1:56 PM EDT
Let me ask those who oppose a public insurance option if they support our wars.

Any takers?? 'Cause if you support the wars, you are NOT fiscal conservatives.

Do you think the government has handled the wars correctly, from a fiscal standpoint? No???

Then why would you support the wars, if government fiscal responsibility is your criteria?

I am betting no one who supports the wars can answer that.



.
Reply to this comment
by anti-global2 September 2, 2009 2:02 PM EDT
I don't support the wars and I don't support the public option either.
I don't think you should take from one person and give it to another in any circumstance.
As for the wars they are taking tax payer money to try and gain control of energy resources that will benifit certain companies, but not the people paying the taxes, this is wrong.
As for the public option, they want to take tax dollars and possibly part of premiums paid to private insurers to help insure those who are either poor or those who choose not to have coverage. This is wrong to, if you're poor get a job, if you have a job get a second job, if you have a second job get a third job. Leisure time and luxury goods are not a right, they are a priveledge. If you need me to help pay for your insurance then you should have to show up and clean my toilets and cut my lawn, since everyone should work for what they are paid.
by slownewsday_5 September 2, 2009 2:10 PM EDT
I appreciate the response, and generally don't agree with welfare, unless we're talking orphans or the severely disabled.

However, I'm looking for a response from someone who supports the wars to answer the specific question "why would you support the wars, if government fiscal responsibility is your criteria?"


.
by speakinup23 September 2, 2009 2:18 PM EDT
I support taking out anyone that is a terrorist. Even Obama believes this is why we are in Afghanistan. This is not an option to stop doing. Otherwise, how are you going to cover the insurance costs that will skyrocket when someplace in the US gets nuked, or in a lessor case, just dirty bombed ? You say they have no nukes - well guess what Pakistan does, and hopefully you won't be ignorant enough to see that is where Al Qaeda is now based and attacking Afghanistan from.

As always SLOW, you are not thinking ahead.


Psssst - looks like you lost your bet.
by slownewsday_5 September 2, 2009 2:31 PM EDT
"by speakinup23
Psssst - looks like you lost your bet."

Not really, as you didn't answer the question.


Why would you support the wars, IF GOVERNMENT FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY is your criteria for support???

They clearly aren't fiscally responsible there, yet you support them. Then you turn around and cry that you don't want them involved in healthcare insurance because they aren't fiscally responsible.

Make up your mind.


.
by skyk-2009 September 2, 2009 2:54 PM EDT
anti-global2, you do realize we've been providing assistance for other citizens and neighbors for as long as this nation has been here. We are NOT a greedy people and I think you are about to find that out.
by anti-global2 September 2, 2009 3:17 PM EDT
skyk-2009,

i have no problem providing assistance to those who are incapable of helping themselves, or even giving a hand to lift someone up as long as they make an honest effort.
I do have a problem with those who feel they should be given what someone else has, even though they cannot afford it and don't want to work for it.
Many people in this country start out poor, work multiple jobs, go to school and eventually improve their situation. The opportunity is there if you are willing to work for it. If you're not, you're lazy and are a burden on everyone else. Being poor does not make one a victim. If you made bad decisions in your life you are getting what you deserve.
by doc_holliday76 September 2, 2009 1:30 PM EDT
by anti-global2

so someone would be able to go for years without paying for insurance like the rest of us do, but then if they develop an illness can go get insurance and have the same treatment that a person who has been paying for coverage all along gets???
--------------------




NO, that's the problem, the for-profit insurance companies will NOT insure somebody that is sick or has pre-existing conditions, and will usually drop coverage on their insured when the costs of treating them starts dipping into their record profits!

Why do you make it up as you go along with just more lies?
Reply to this comment
by Mr-R September 2, 2009 1:20 PM EDT
Obama has not been specific. He has answered broad questions related to health care. For example he claims that you can keep your existing health insurance if you want. But how long is it going to take a public option to put most private insurance companies out of business. When he does get cornered on an issue he can always claim that there is not a finalized bill.

This administrations goal is to wipe America clean and equalize American's wealth. While doing this he is appointing a select few (czars and others) to power. What is the point of the czars and why do most of them have radical backgrounds? Beware America! Life as you know it is being pulled out from under you!
Reply to this comment
by Mr-R September 2, 2009 1:19 PM EDT
Obama has not been specific. He has answered broad questions related to health care. For example he claims that you can keep your existing health insurance if you want. But how long is it going to take a public option to put most private insurance companies out of business. When he does get cornered on an issue he can always claim that there is not a finalized bill.

This administrations goal is to wipe America clean and equalize American's wealth. While doing this he is appointing a select few (czars and others) to power. What is the point of the czars and why do most of them have radical backgrounds? Beware America! Life as you know it is being pulled out from under you!
Reply to this comment
by skyk-2009 September 2, 2009 2:34 PM EDT
Mr-R, no the goal here is to get this nation OUT of the WORST ECONOMIC MELTDOWN since the Great Depression and make us competitive with the rest of the World. You embarrass yourself and the rest of us with your insanity you know. What were you people doing during the Election? Oh that's a silly question! You were running around telling everyone that Obama was a Muslim? By the way do do know that Nixon was the one who started the Czars don't you? LOL YOU to are EMBARRASSING!!
by democracy1 September 2, 2009 10:06 PM EDT
by Thou_Majesty September 2, 2009 2:53 PM EDT
Now you're "THOU_MAJESTY"? What a pretentious jerk you proclaim yourself to be!
by speakinup23 September 2, 2009 1:12 PM EDT
What Obama doesn't tell you is that he wants to take money away from the existing Insurance companies to do this to partially fund his plan. That means that if you have insurance - your tax dollars are now being diverted to pay for the insurance of those that pay almost NOTHING in taxes to start with.

Your Insurance premiums WILL go up drastically.

Socialism at its best.

Health care is NOT an entitlement. Just as food is NOT free. Just as Freedom is NOT free.



Email or call your representative today to tell them yo are fed up with Obama's socialized medical plan.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
Reply to this comment
by CaboSailor September 2, 2009 1:21 PM EDT
This is the first time that I have ever felt compelled to contact my represenatives with more than a brief note and that was rare. Now I get the response that they are receiving too many e-mails to individually respond to in the form of a standard reply. I would like to hope though that some poor schmuck on their staff is required to go through them and present a summary. Its a hope anyway so e-mail away.
by speakinup23 September 2, 2009 2:24 PM EDT
caboSailor - I email my representatives all the time. If you get a personalized response, you are in a very small minority.

They do look at the content, and you should be respectful when emailing them. However, it is kind of a poll to them as to how they sould feel on their next vote of the topic. They CAN be swayed, but not always. If their email is 40/60 they will still do as they wish, but if its 25/75 - they start to worry if their position is too out of step.

I have only received canned responses to my inquires. Usually they ask you what the topic is, and you get the letter of the day for that topic in response a couple of days later.

To be fair, there is no way even their staff could respond to all.
by skyk-2009 September 2, 2009 2:30 PM EDT
speakinup23, you sat there for EIGHT YEARS while the confederate party promised EVERY SINGLE YEAR to make health care more affordable. They LIED and you said NOTHING. Now you are on here misrepresenting the Presidents Plan. Is there anything you "hope for failure" people won't do. Now the Democrats are going to pass the plan you know. You also, know that when they do ALL your claims and mud slinging will become obvious to all. You poor people will never learn will you?
by democracy1 September 2, 2009 10:04 PM EDT
by speakinup23 September 2, 2009 1:12 PM EDT
Start off by reducing fraud (got a problem with that--why did previous administrations ignore it?). Add the cost-savings and medical efficiency of electronic records. Reduce the overhead of insurance (at least for the private OPTION) to 3% as it is under Medicare (as opposed to roughly 30$ under private insurance), etc., etc., etc.

I know that some people like you can only see the minute talking points presented to you by your masters, but the majority of us are able to see the LARGER picture by paying attention to ALL of the details.
by CaboSailor September 2, 2009 1:08 PM EDT
All those goals that Mr. Knoller presents are laudable BUT

1: It should not take a document over a 1,000 pages long to accomplish and that no one understands. It will be in court for decades before anything beneficial comes of it.

2: Most citizens, including me, want the government LESS involved in my life, not more.

3: We have abundant examples of how well the government runs things. Budgets are apparently for others, not them.

4: The price tag for all the above will be astronomical and guess who'll be paying? If we spent the money for a "Manhattan" style program we could probably cure cancer in a few years. No food or lodging but cancer free you bet.

The government doesn't do well on such a grand scale. Why not tackle it in chewable size pieces? Let's say start with tort reform. (Whoops most politicians and their cronies are lawyers, so I guess they're safe) OK, how about getting a bunch of doctor's and nurses together, anonomously to protect their jobs, and ask them to identify the spots where health care expenses are really wasted. The unnecessary tests and procedures for example, if Mr. X is dying of lung cancer why bother doing a biopsy of his prostrate. And yes this and worse happens.

There must be something in the air in D.C. that erodes intelligence. Not only are they making stupid decisions but they think we don't realize it.
Reply to this comment
by 1notrub11 September 2, 2009 2:07 PM EDT
Couldn't agree more
by doc_holliday76 September 2, 2009 2:08 PM EDT
by CaboSailor
"Let's say start with tort reform."
--------------------



Typical conservative red herring statement, in which the real purpose of the proposed changes is to shield businesses, especially large corporations, from having to pay just compensation to consumers, patients and clients for damages incurred from fraud, negligence, medical malpractice or other legitimate tort claims.

While I certainly support litigation reform which is proven to be either frivolous or fraudulent, this is still a very small part of malpractice litigation, and would hardly lower health care costs at all.

I do support other methods of reducing health care costs which could save hundreds of billions of dollars per year, like electronic records and billing, reduction of multiple or unneeded tests, and the reduction of practicing defensive medicine since physicians are already paying for malpractice insurance.

It really seems as if the insurance business should never have been associated with medicine and health care, since this has only led to much higher costs in U.S. health care compared to the rest of the world! It should never have been a "necessary evil."
by speakinup23 September 2, 2009 2:26 PM EDT
HEAR HEAR CaboSailor !
by jon2012-2009 September 2, 2009 2:34 PM EDT
All the countries in the world that provide affordable health care for their citizens have done so without the private sector as the cornerstore of health care. It's the government, believe it or not. The U.S. is still trying to be the exception. Good luck.
by skyk-2009 September 2, 2009 2:37 PM EDT
CaboSailor, is there something you poor people do not understand about the word "OPTION"?? That means you decide for YOURSELF and I decide for MYSELF. This isn't rocket science you know! Those of us who are SENIOR CITIZENS have been in a public option since the 60's. I often wonder who you poor souls thing is it who works for the Government?? I'd swear the person I dealt with last at Social Security was an AMERICAN... just doing a job! LOL
by jon2012-2009 September 2, 2009 2:38 PM EDT
Our doctors, private health insurers and drug companies maintain a straglehold on health care that we need to break in orher to achieve affordable care. Their business model works based on a rather common idea: your money or your life.
by skyk-2009 September 2, 2009 2:39 PM EDT
1notrub11, good! Now I expect you to turn down Social Security and Medicare when that time comes for you. You wouldn't want to go back on your word there now would you?? LOL
by skyk-2009 September 2, 2009 2:41 PM EDT
jon2012-2009, oh we'll catch up... sometimes people have to have a second helping of misery but we'll get there. Now EVERYONE knows the Public Option is better and cheaper, why else would the Insurance Company's call out the goon squad? LOL
by skyk-2009 September 2, 2009 2:51 PM EDT
speakinup23, you and your representative matter how? LOL There is no doubt this nation wants health care reform and it's obvious that the Republican Party is out to stop it at all cost. The Democrats have reached a deal among themselves or the President wouldn't be coming out to talk about it. It's to bad the Republican's didn't take the chance to negotiate on it but I believe the President has two if not three of the Real Republican's on board in the Senate. None of the Republican Senators outside the stupid South wants to get caught not voting for reform. But hey good luck on contacting who ever. If you have a Democrat Rep though he's a fool to listen to someone who would never vote for him.
by anti-global2 September 2, 2009 12:44 PM EDT
so someone would be able to go for years without paying for insurance like the rest of us do, but then if they develop an illness can go get insurance and have the same treatment that a person who has been paying for coverage all along gets???
Somehow that does not seem fair.
Reply to this comment
by doc_holliday76 September 2, 2009 1:31 PM EDT
by anti-global2

but then if they develop an illness can go get insurance and have the same treatment that a person who has been paying for coverage all along gets???
--------------------




NO, that's the problem, the for-profit insurance companies will NOT insure somebody that is sick or has pre-existing conditions, and will usually drop coverage on their insured when the costs of treating them starts dipping into their record profits!

Why do you make it up as you go along with just more lies?
by anti-global2 September 2, 2009 1:55 PM EDT
what are you talking about lies for? Where did i lie, I asked a question. My point is if you go through life not paying for insurance ( in other words not pulling your weight if you want treatment in case you become ill)why should you be able to go and get insurance once you become ill? At this point the insurance should be able to deny you coverage, it is a no win for them, you would get to pay your monthly premium and they would get stuck paying your medical bills which will be alot more then the premiums you are paying.
On the other hand I think it is totally wrong to be able to drop coverage on someone who has been paying for insurance and then becomes ill. They have been fulfilling their responsibility to make sure they have coverage in case of illness, therefore when they become ill the insurance company should provide the care they need.
What I see is alot of people who think everyone should just be nice and give everyone everything they need, regardless of the cost to everyone else. If that is the way we are going to go they better announce it to everyone soon so I can quit my job and sit back and collect. I will not work and have someone take my earnings and give them up to those who don't work. That is the bottom line.
by slownewsday_5 September 2, 2009 2:14 PM EDT
"On the other hand I think it is totally wrong to be able to drop coverage on someone who has been paying for insurance and then becomes ill."

That's the actual root of the problem - insurance companies dropping your coverage (making it so no other insurance company will pick up your coverage), and denying claims made by your doctor.

.
by skyk-2009 September 2, 2009 2:26 PM EDT
anti-global2, you don't know much about the subject do you? If you leave your job or are laid off, you loose your insurance. IF you then try to get coverage with another Company they can now deny you based on an Illness you had under the Other Coverage. You know if you really cared you'd have known that now wouldn't you. THIS is one of our major problems in this debate... some are just determined to see the President fail and the details just do not matter to them.
by jon2012-2009 September 2, 2009 2:30 PM EDT
That's why we need to expand Medicare to cover all. This program does not deny coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions but it's targeted only to those aged 65+. If private insurers were to cover this population group without raising premiums above what Medicare charges, private insurers would quickly go out of business.

Expanding Medicare to include those below 65+ would be even easier, one would think, since younger subscribers would not cost as much. They can do it with older people, why not everyone else?
by anti-global2 September 2, 2009 2:37 PM EDT
yes, that is totally wrong, but regulation would put a stop to that, you don't need a public option. also how do you know that the private insurers will not be even easier to drop someone when they become ill. They could then use the logic, even if we drop you you can still pick up public option coverage. Then they make thier money and the tax payers get stuck with the bill for everyone who develops a serious medical condition.
There is not debate that we need reform, the debate is what kind of reformk. nobody rich or poor is going to have a problem if their coverage stays the same or improves and they save money, it is just how to do it in a way that is fair to everyone.
by democracy1 September 2, 2009 9:54 PM EDT
by anti-global2 September 2, 2009 2:37 PM EDT
It's already been proposed that they WOULDN'T be able to drop you for pre-existing conditions. Obviously you are paying more attention to BS talking points from the right than any reputable news source or facts.
See all 47 Comments

About Political Hotsheet

Stay up to the minute on the latest news and developments from Washington, from the White House to Congress and everything in-between with the best political reporters from CBS News and CBSNews.com.

E-Mail Political Hotsheet
Follow On Twitter

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn
  • MOST POPULAR
Discussed
  1. Senate Health Bill Faces Crucial Vote

    (264 recent comments)

HOTSHEET ON TWITTER