The Speechiest Speechster’s Speech Of All Speeches

Did anyone actually watch this last night? I had stuff to do, but even if I were sitting home nestled in with a vial of fermented grape juice I doubt I would have. These things are incredibly boring Politburo-esque affairs, with all these choreographed standing ovations. Blech.

Anyhoo, so I’m wading through the transcript and I come upon this

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.

What are the limits to a statement like that? Well…none, actually. especially when you have Obama saying this just a few days ago

In a newly-released interview with Men’s Health magazine, President Obama has said he is open to the idea of a tax on soda and other sugary drinks, which some have pointed to as a way to help pay for health care reform.

“I actually think it’s an idea that we should be exploring,” Obama said in the interview. “There’s no doubt that our kids drink way too much soda.”

“Every study that’s been done about obesity shows that there is as high a correlation between increased soda consumption and obesity as just about anything else,” he continued. “Obviously it’s not the only factor, but it is a major factor.”

The president went on to note that there is resistance in Congress to “sin taxes” such as this.

“People’s attitude is that they don’t necessarily want Big Brother telling them what to eat or drink, and I understand that,” he said. “It is true, though, that if you wanted to make a big impact on people’s health in this country, reducing things like soda consumption would be helpful.”

So it seems to me that if you think that the government is going to get very intrusive in your life for “society’s good” you’re not being some type of whack-o alarmist but actually taking them at their word.

Now, as a final thought, can someone please find a way to rectify these three statements from the speech…


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. 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.

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.


…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.


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.

…because I sure can’t.

Under his plan a government-run “company” will be more efficient and a better deal for consumers than private insurance companies because it will cut out the “hundreds of billions of dollars of waste”…in the current government run Medicare program? A new government agency will “avoid excess overhead”?

It’s a good thing I didn’t watch, or I might have jumped up and yelled “Liar!” at the tv…

8 Responses to “The Speechiest Speechster’s Speech Of All Speeches”

  1. gregor says:

    I did not watch it. The sight and sound of him infuriates me. I am sorry I missed Joe Wilson, though, that would have been a stand up and cheer moment. I’ve watched the videos this morning, the look on Botox Nancy’s face is priceless.

  2. Dave E. says:

    I watched it with my buddy Jim and I said “lie” a heck of a lot more than Joe Wilson. Mr. Beam was grimly silent.

  3. JeffS says:

    “Liar” is right.

    Oh, and those three statements? They all mean the same thing: “We’re from the government, and we’re here to help.”

  4. Amazingly enough ebola watched it, along with a large cadre of friends all critiquing it in realtime on Facebook! How ’bout that? Of course, it did nothing for our quiet, Precedent-free evening, since schweet child kept calling and screaming about this lie/exaggeration/phallicy or that. So we got a play-by-play, regardless of our best, most craven attempts to remain speechless.

  5. nightfly says:

    We watched America’s Next Top Model. At least Tyra is entertaining and crazy.

  6. Gary from Jersey says:

    You gotta hand the guy this much: he’s a master of the non sequitor (sp?) and the misdirect.

    Which is just my way of saying the man is an epic pile of b.s.

  7. I live in New South Wales, Australia, and work as a Registered Nurse in the government health system. NSW Health has just finished hiring their latest round os administrators – there are now 33k administrators, and 32k nurses and doctors.
    No one is able to get the figures for the percentage of admin expenses out of the health dollar. They don’t “waste money” getting them.

  8. Mr. Bingley says:

    That’s stunning, Winston, but not surprising. Bureaucrats and administrators control the budgets and very quickly allocate themselves all the resources.

Image | WordPress Themes