The Big Obama Administration Thread

Remove all ads!

I have to say, Obama's doing really well, even better than I expected. He gave a great speech the other day, and he's doing what seemed impossible just last year - getting the rest of the world to respect us once again. What a task that must be, after the last 8 years of failed policy. Even some conservatives like the speech Obama gave:

It was brilliant: he defended America, and its failed policies, while opening the chance for a real dialogue between the Muslim nations of the ME and the US. Iraq is a done deal, why bother to go back and remind everyone of the mistakes that were made? But even better, he is using the same strategy in this speech against the terrorists, that he uses against his most draconian detractors at home. He is isolating them from the mainstream and marginalzing them into Oblivion - and of course, with their shrill and strident rhetoric, they are more than willing to help him accomplish just that.


http://www.salon.com/opinion/featur...tz/index.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/feature

On the economy things are also improving:

Also:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31044574/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31121258/

The stock market is up over a 1000 points, having 3 months of straight gains.

This is what most of us were hoping for. Most everyone gave Obama 6 months to at least make some headway on cleaning up the mess left by the previous administration. And he continues to get bad adivce from conservatives in Congress and the Conservative media. Most of the advice is intentionally bad coming from the conservative media, since we already know "they want him to fail." So why should they bother to make suggestions that would actually work for him?

Nevertheless, there is still a long way to go: unemployment is still very high, the housing market is still in the pits; there are still the "endless wars" (with no end in sight) and Bin Laden & company are still out there. But Obama appears to be steadily moving on track, doing far better than the previous regime, and better than many gave him credit for just a few short months ago.

Good job Obama. "You da Man."

 

Chandos ... are you Obama's mother incognito?

 

What a horrible thing to say about Obama's mother.

 

Recently Republican Judd Gregg held up a chart on the Senate floor showing that Mr. Obama would increase the deficit. He didn't say that much of the increase stemmed from extending Bush policies, and that he, as a senate veteran, held his seat throughout the Bush years. How serious did he take fiscal responsibility then?

Interesting article about the origins current deficit in the US. When Clinton left office, calculations projected an expected surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Well, that was then. This illustration is telling enough.

​

 

I'd like to get back to health care reform for a while if we could. I notice that the Republicans are against a public option for health care as it would represent significant government involvement in the health care industry. Putting aside the point that Republicans would be against any option proposed by Obama, my question is a simple one - there seems to be only two ways to reform the health care system: a public option or placing significant regulations on the private health care industry. All proposed options seem to be some variation of those two possibilities. But wouldn't both options require significant government involvement? Furthermore, if we are expecting the government to pass legislation to reform the health care system, does that not - by definition - mean we need significant government involvement?

I don't know if it would be legal for Congress to pass laws that would require insurers to accept all applications, or to accept applicants who had been previously denied due to "pre-existing conditions". I'm also not sure if it would be legal for the government to set prices that insurers can charge, much like they do for certain utilities.

I guess my larger question is, what's so bad about a public option? Doesn't this play right into the ideal of competition among different companies/groups to set prices? WIth the public option - if they actually can do it better/cheaper/more efficiently than the major insurance companies, then the major insurance companies will need to either improve their business practices or go out of business. If, as many people expect, that the government will be incapable of matching private industry in providing health care, no one will want to sign up.

I undertand the point people make that in a government operated activity, people will take the attitude that it's not their money and thus may not run the program as efficiently as you would expect compared to a private industry. However, in the private industry, the goal is to maximize the company profits, and there is a share of problems that come with that as well.

I currently have insurance through my employer, and since I am happy with my insurance, I would probably keep it regardless of whether we get a public option or not. However, I don't necessarily mind knowing that there is backup plan available if my employer should decide to reduce our benefits some day. And if having that backup plan means I'm going to have to fork over an extra $10 per paycheck in taxes to fund it, I won't mind.

 

@ Aldeth:

I think you're confusing government involvement with government competition. The federal government is, unfortunately, largely involved with everything we do on a day-to-day basis, especially as it concerns law, health, and finances. The difference between the government passing a law and entering the field as a competitor is readily apparent. With the government legislating improvement in corporate health care packages, this becomes something like the E.P.A., the environmental organization which regulates the actions of private businesses that are prone to pollution (such as a chemical manufacturer) and sanctions them when they fail to meet standards. To me, the "public option" health care plan is more like the public option schooling system. There exist private schools, but the convenience and lack of expense of a primary public education is very convincing to less wealthy people or people who convince themselves that an excellent education isn't worth tens of thousands a year. I think that this sort of economically centered thinking would work the same way in health insurance purchases as in scholastic decisions. The public option contribute to driving many health care firms if not out of business then into marginality.

Further, I think that the implementation of the public option would encourage employers to offer fewer benefits to currently employed workers. In a good economic marketplace, jobs want to appeal to people searching for jobs so as to get the best match for the position and get the best person that the employer can. As such, employers have an incentive to provide good benefits packages to their employees. In this market, there are few firms searching for applicants and fewer people being hired. In this market, if the public option was taken, I think most employers would forgo the additional expense of this additional insurance and simply let the public option take over. After all, it's in their financial self-interest. If an employee doesn't like it, sorry. He can quit, and there's a dozen people in line to take his place.

So aside from my desire to see less governmental interference in the private sector (especially as a competitor!) I just think that this is an awful time for the proposal to be considered. Social security is running out, medicare is beating it to the finish, and we're proposing expanding health care (and government) in a recession when we're already dumping money into a war and bailouts. I honestly can't think of a less suitable time to consider expanding governmental spending.

 

As for that last paragraph I do partially agree with you. While I think that it is possible that a public option can eventually reduce costs, there initial startup costs of the program are going to be significant.

I also agree that if a public option becomes popular, employers may start offering medical plans with less frequency. This, in theory, would allow a company to either hire more workers or pay the workers they have more money, which in turn would help grow the economy. So in the long term, this can have a net benefit, despite the costs of billions per year in running the program, even after you discount the initial startup costs.

Where we disagree is I do not think that the monetary problems of Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and the current economic conditions are reason enough to put this off. As for the economy, there are already signs of life. While 2009 is not going to be a banner year for economic growth, it appears that we are turning the corner. Most economists are predicting an end of the recession by the end of the year, and even the more pessimistic economists are saying early 2010. Besides, the economy always goes in cycles, and any type of national health care will necessarily have to function in both good times and bad.

Medicare and Social Security are certainly in economic trouble - which the current recession is compounding as fewer taxes are being collected - but overall I think a Medicare and Social Security solution is easier than that of health care. With Medicare and Social Security, we already have a functional system, whereas with health care reform we do not yet know what form it will take, as there are a few options to consider. (Yes, it ultimately has to be public option or regulation of private firms, but there are numerous ways to implement those two choices.) Medicare and Social Security is comparitvely easier to solve.

Social Security is currently taxed at a rate of 6.2% up to the first $106,800 of income for this year. For income in excess of that amount, the tax rate is 0%. By increasing the cap, or removing the cap altogether, Social Security can greatly increase it solvency (even if there was not a comparable jump in the employers' contribution). One economic report cited that if you taxed income in excess of $106,800 by half the rate of the first $106,800 (so 3.1%) Social Security retains its solvency through 2065. (Not bad!)

Medicare is a bit different. Not only is Medicare taxed at a lower rate (1.45%), but unlike Social Security, there is no cap. It's 1.45% of your income regardless of whether you work for minimum wage or are a CEO. Medicare's problems can be solved for the foreseeable future by increasing the tax rate to 1.65%. That's just an extra 20 cents for every hundred dollars you earn. So even if you're doing well and are clearing $2,000 per week, your tax hit would be just $4.

 

The healthcare situation in the US is an absolute disgrace. No other advanced country in the world treats its population as they are treated here regarding healthcare. The system forces you to choose the private insurance option regardless of your job or employment status. There is a two tier pricing that most hospitals charge, which should be completely illegal in the first place. If you have insurance there is a different price for the same exact care. 95 percent of the population cannot afford the individual option, and the bastards know it, so you are forced to choose some kind of private insurance option. It's a great system for the private insurance compaines, but terrible for the public that is not insured.

My personal healthcare insurance through my employer sucks. If we are ever lucky enough to have a public option, I will tell my company it can stick its insurance in a dark place where the sun doesn't shine. But the insurance companies own half of Congress, even some Democrats. So while some may want to complain about "the government," you can thank the fact that it is bought and paid for by corporate America.

 

It's good to have those numbers - I'd love it if we taxed the rich more to help make social security and medicare solvent. No offense to any of them, but once the baby boomers have passed away, it'll probably be solvent again anyway. That's half the problem (If you look at a population curve by age in the U.S. right now, a massive number of people from that age group have recently begun to reap social security, which is one of the major causes of the problem).

However, you know as well as I do that those taxes aren't likely to be passed. Congressmen aren't noted for putting into place taxes targeting them. And then placing it into the perspective that we're implementing a new system that will undoubtedly 1) Hurt private industry and 2) Require as much money or more than the bailouts to start, I don't think that it's the right time. And, honestly, they're only tackling a tiny portion of a massive systemic problem. The hospitals, themselves, are privately owned, and generate profits. Unless the government wants to take them over, they're going to continue to charge extremely high rates for various procedures and they will likely lacerate the government for all they're worth. And if they're "publicized," then where does the money for new medical research come from? Pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and insurance companies provide around 60% of medical research funding since 2003 to around 20-30% for governmental programs (http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/HealthPolicy/1767) and that's going to be hurt by the sudden elimination of profits due to either being crushed by the government's program or being forced to cut most of their profit-generating rates down to appear competitive with a free program, which is impossible. I just can't see the program being effective unless they hike taxes up by an amount that voters won't support and completely take over the health care industry.

Those are just a couple of the myriad of problems that I see as being inherent to the sudden appearance of the government in this industry.

Just a point: I oppose public health care and I haven't received any payments from the insurance companies. One doesn't have to have taken massive campaign contributions or bribes to have a position on an issue that differs markedly from yours; some people just don't think it'll be effective or right for our culture and our economy. And even aside from that, politicians are mostly disassociated from the common problems that you or I face on an everyday basis - most of them come from money or married into it, and all of them are now extremely wealthy from salaries or pensions, so don't expect them to approach a problem from your position, and don't assume that differences in opinion are based on corruption.

 

Whether or not there is "corruption" I'll leave to you to decide for yourself. But there is a tangled web of interests in Congress. Everyone has the right to protect his or her own interests, IMO. But there comes a point where situations become so bad and broken - as the current system - that it requires substantial repair. As Ralph Nader comments, "it's pay or die," regarding the current system. It's an abosulte disgrace to humanity.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31331116/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

 

Sory Aldeth but wouldn't that medicare increase be a tax on the poor that obama promised not to do? Just saying.

 

That's certainly true, Chandos. When I look at the situation, I guess I'm a little idealistic - I think that the corporations donate to politicians that they think will advance their agenda or be supportive of similar economic aims - I tend to not think the other way around, that many politicians' aims are determined by their contributors. Either way is an obvious extreme, so it has to some kind of middle ground. Certainly very muddy.

I definitely think that the system needs reform, but I'm sort of startled by the extreme rhetoric you're using to describe it - pay or die, absolute disgrace to humanity, etc. It's not something I've heard before, really, in reaction to the health care system. Why is it so abominable to you? Just the requirement to pay for treatment, the shady deals with insurance companies, or what?

 

Here are some links:



I don't agree with everything that Ralph says, but he makes some interesting points about the current state of health care. Nevertheless, I don't agree with all of his solutions.

This is also from his website:

http://www.votenader.org/issues/social/healthcare/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States

http://www.healthreform.gov/

http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/healthdisparities/index.html

 

The poor aren't going to riot if their tax burden increases by a dollar...especially since he was arguably talking about the income tax and not FICA when he said he wouldn't raise taxes on the poor. That said, a small increase in FICA -- accompanied by the other payroll and income tax cuts that all but the wealthiest Americans have received under Obama's budget -- would still be a net tax cut for the poor. Your precious campaign promises would still remain intact. Just saying.

 

Before I continue, the numbers I'm quoting were reported by a couple of money guys talking on CNBC. As far as I'm aware, neither Obama nor anyone else in his administration is actually proposing this.

Like Drew, I also thought he was talking about federal income tax and not Medicare and Social Security - but I also agree with martaug that most people will not see this nuanced point. I also think that if Obama were to raise Medicare from 1.45% to 1.65% that he would have to sell it as a net tax decrease. Remember, the average guy got about $13 per paycheck with Obama's tax cut, and would have to give about $2 of it back if Medicare was increased by 0.2%.

The people who really would be getting it handed to them are the people who are making well in excess of the Social Security tax cap. Remember that Obama's basic campaign was tax cuts for those making under $150k, no tax increase or decrease for those between $150k and $250K and a 2% income tax increase for those making in excess of $250K. Take a doctor making $200K per year. Under this economists plan, he would still pay 6.2% on income up to $106,800 - which works out to $6621.60 for the year. Under the current system, that's his entire contribution. But if he was required to pay an additional 3.1% for his remaining income, that's an additional $2889.20 for a grand total of $9510.80. So the average Joe will see his tax burden increase by less than $100 annually for both Medicare and Social Security combined (even if you discount the tax break he received), while the guy making $200K will see it increase by a few thousand dollars.

Frankly, I don't see why we need to have either a cap OR a rate reduction kick in after a certain point. I don't see why everyone cannot pay 6.2% of their income into Social Security. While I currently make under the cap, it is not unreasonable for someone in my profession with around 20 years of experience to be making more than the current cap. So if I keep doing my current job for another 10-15 years, I would be making above the cap, and I don't think it would particularly bother me if I had to pay a bit more. (Granted, even the people with 20 years experience aren't making $200k - they're making more like $120k, so the additional contribution would be relatively small.)

I understand that the concept behind a cap is that beyond a certain point of paying into the system, you cannot reasonably expect to make back what you paid into it, especially once you factor in inflation, and consider that a dollar today is probably going to be worth a heck of a lot more than a dollar at the time you retire. I get that. But here's the thing - people making in excess of $100k per year are not the ones relying on Social Security for their retirement. The other possibility for fixing the system that the rich would not like (and this was not suggested on the program) was to have Social Security payments be needs-tested. So if you have a couple million bucks saved for retirement, you wouldn't get any money from Social Security - regardless of how much you paid in. (I don't necessarily like that option, as the recent economic crisis has shown a huge chunk of your savings can evaporate rather quickly. Social Security was always supposed to be a safety net, and should remain so.)

 

We'll get to hear all about the President's health care reform plan on the 24th when ABC (All Barack Channel) airs their special from the White House.

 

Oh yes, the same ABC that aired "Path to 9/11," employs Sean Hannity and Mark Halperin, once hired Rush Limbaugh and had an on-air host refer to Obama as a "Halfrican." Bunch o' lefties, there.

 

I haven't watched ABC for news in forever, it seems. Knowing that, I'll have to watch it more often. Thanks for the info, KJ.

 

Priceless

 

Hey! A drive-by!

Seriously though, the natives are starting to get a little restless. The latest Wall Street Journal Poll was released yesterday, and Barack is still pretty popular - 56% approve of his job performance. But that is down from 61% from back in February. Surprisingly, even though he has a pretty good approval rating, Americans are undecided about the two main issues thus far in his presidency: the economy and health care reform. According to the poll, only 46% of the people think Obama has taken all the proper steps for the economic recovery (after 5 months people are expecting resutls) and on health care the poll split evenly into three answers: almost exactly 1/3 in favor of public health care, 1/3 opposed to public health care, and 1/3 who say they either do not understand or do not know enough about the proposed program to know whether they favor or oppose public health care. Obama himself is still perceived favorably, but he has a lot of work to do convince people that what he is doing is helping. When less than half the poeple think you're doing a good job on the economy, and a third of the people don't even know enough about your health care plan to have an opinion on it, there is a communication failure from a president that won the presidency in no small part because of his communication skills.

Even people like Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann on their reliably right-wing TV channels of HBO and MSNBC have been critical of Obama this week. Everyone's basically asking - "Where's the Beef". Maher went so far to say that Obama needs a little bit of Bush's attitude in him. He said when Bush was the president and had a majority in both chambers of Congress, he was able to push through most of what he wanted - even if it what he wanted was a piss-poor idea. Bush was able to get Republicans to rally around his ideas and get them passed. The Dems could theoretically do the same thing, but the infighting in the party prevents them from doing so.