Thursday, September 10, 2009
Analyzing the health care speech
Having neither seen nor read the talk in its entirety I won't condemn it, but the analysis on Powerline is illuminating because it provides a fascinating look into Obama-speak at its most highly tuned. When I watch Obama speak I get caught up in oratory like a lot of people and often miss little tidbits like this:
President Obama talked about the "public option" and assured listeners that it would not be subsidized by the government:
I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers.
Is it churlish to point out that profits are not overhead? It might be if this were just a slip of the tongue on the stump. But this was a speech that was carefully crafted by Obama and his top advisers. They really do not know the first thing about business or economics. So why should we put them in charge of our economy?
I agree that Obama's equating profits with overhead is very revealing, and I would think it would give most private sector employees who understand how their salaries are generated a bit of a chill.
The whole thing is well worth reading, and reveals a string of carefully crafted distortions and half truths. More change we can believe in, I guess.
7 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Sep 10, 05:58:00 PM:
"... reveals a string of carefully crafted distortions and half truths."
We have been gettin that for years now from Barak Obama.
However, he let that quip about "profits" and "overhead" slip through the "carefully crafted" part. Perhaps a forced error caused by inexperience?
By , at
Thu Sep 10, 07:26:00 PM:
Isn't this really a detraction from the thrust of his speach--if the goal of universal health care is to actually provide care to people, rather than profits to shareholders, then why shouldn't "profits" be treated as overhead? Why must I build into a public health system an added expense item such as paying dividends to shareholders?
By , at
Thu Sep 10, 08:21:00 PM:
By 
SR, at
Thu Sep 10, 10:30:00 PM:
Profits drive efficiency. Profits focus effort.
Profits reward owners for the risks they take in business. There is nothing wrong with profits. Nobody can prove that eschewing profits will deliver more products, and better products (product in this case being healthcare).
I like the question, though. If the goal is providing care to people, why would politicians settle on a system (single payer, and make no mistake, Democrats' avowed goal is to ultimately get there)
which has proven, in every case it has been employed to do exactly the opposite.
By , at
Thu Sep 10, 11:57:00 PM:
You took the time to write a blog post about a speech that you chose neither to watch nor read? How insightful.
For the love of Mike, don't you guys have any friends to talk first?
By , at
Fri Sep 11, 12:55:00 AM:
For myself, I knew the speech would leave out all of the important parts, and it did.
How is it going to be paid for?
If illegal immigrants are not going to be covered, how are they going to be identified?
How will we be able to keep our insurance if it is canceled by our employer because the "public option" is cheaper for them?
Why don't we just try tort reform and see if it works? It would save all of us money, on just about everything.
There were no specifics, it was just a speech, and a colossal waste of time from what I have read.
We were told once that after 1987 amnesty the government would secure the border. There weren't any specifics, and it hasn't happened yet. We need reasoned, fact based policy, not more empty promises.
By , at
Fri Sep 11, 08:48:00 AM:
If folks are so all consumed ,purportedly, about providing health insurance for those whom, alledgedly, cannot afford it. If it's "our duty and obligation" ,why don't they fund and support, out of their own pockets, charities and non-governmental organizations that provide health care services to people whom "find" themselves in such financial predicament. I could be more accepting of their point of view would that they were concerned enough to have risked and shared their own money to attempt to solve the all important problem of healthcare in this country. That they don't should, and does, raise serious concerns about the veracity of their claims. Too often I've found this to true whenever there is a compelling "need" to involve taxpayer to solve some fabricated social concern.
