Has President Barack Obama finally drawn the line in the sand on health care?
In a speech today to the American Medical Association, the president — in the words of The Washington Post “offered a forceful defense of creating a controversial new government-sponsored health insurance program as part of a broad overhaul of the nation’s system.”
“Insurance companies have expressed support for the idea of covering the uninsured — and I welcome their willingness to engage constructively in the reform debate, I’m glad they’re at the table,” he told nearly 2,000 AMA members. “But what I refuse to do is simply create a system where insurance companies suddenly have a whole bunch more customers on Uncle Sam’s dime, but still fail to meet their responsibilities.”
He described the outlines of the public plan this way (from text of speech as prepared, on Daily Kos):
If you don’t like your health coverage or don’t have any insurance, you will have a chance to take part in what we’re calling a Health Insurance Exchange. This Exchange will allow you to one-stop shop for a health care plan, compare benefits and prices, and choose a plan that’s best for you and your family – just as federal employees can do, from a postal worker to a Member of Congress. You will have your choice of a number of plans that offer a few different packages, but every plan would offer an affordable, basic package. And one of these options needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market so that force waste out of the system and keep the insurance companies honest.
This is the strongest language he has used since the election in support of the public option. The question is whether it addresses the question raised by Robert Reich on Friday on Bill Moyers’ Journal.
BILL MOYERS: (Y)ou said on your blog this week that the real question for you is the extent to which Barack Obama will push back against these lobbies. What’s your answer to your own question?
ROBERT REICH: I don’t know, Bill. This is the first test where there is huge organized opposition. And it’s coming from very, very powerful lobbies who have prevailed– not just for ten or 15 years. You’ve prevailed for decades on this issue. So this is the truth time in terms of how able and willing the President and the White House is to really set boundaries and push members of Congress.
So it’s at this point– and I’m talking about the next two or three or four weeks. I mean, we’re talking about crunch time right now– that the President has got to step in and be forceful and be specific. And I don’t know whether he will be. I hope he is.
BILL MOYERS: What will you be looking for?
ROBERT REICH: I’ll be looking for whether he can say to Max Baucus, for example, of Senate finance, “Look, this is what I want. And if you’re not going to go along with this, I want to know why. And if you’re not going to go along with this, then would something else you want down the line you’re not going to get.” In other words, he’s got to really create very, very specific conditions, threats, promises. This is the stuff of politics.
Reich is correct. While he spoke several days before today’s speech, the basic point remains valid: He needs to spend his political capital to create a public option (especially with the public being in his corner on the issue), backing Ted Kennedy and the public-option advocates publicly and loudly and making it clear through the standard political channels that there would be consequences to those Democratic senators who jump ship.
Before anyone accuses me of calling for Obama to do something I critized Bush for doing, stop. I am not advocating the president usurp the power of the legislative branch via some kooky theory of the unitary executive. Rather, I am calling for Obama to play hardball politics, to put his popularity on the line for one of his signature policy goals.
Today’s speech is a good sign, but we won’t know for several weeks if it predicts a new tack for Obama, whose instincts are more toward compromise than confrontation.
So we’ll see. Let’s hope he’s begun drawing his line in the sand on health care.
Hank Kalet 
The problem is that with the \”government public option\” is that having it in the mix will destroy the insurance market. Just like Catholic parochial schools can NOT compete with \”free\” public-paid government supplied education. Once the government has it's \”nose\” in the tent, it will destroy the marketplace. For example, why should an employer pay for insurance when the employees can get it from the government without costing the employer anything. For example, the government will set the rules about what must be covered (i.e., hair plugs), and the \”competing insurances\” must cover it. For example, the gooferment will define the records its competitors will have to keep and waive that for itself.The same reasons why we rejected Hillary-care are the same reasons we should reject Obama-care. It's just a step in the direction of totally government health care. Sorry, but we can't afford this non-sense. Nor can we survive having Health Care a la the Post Office. Rationing, and lower standards, will precede outright denial. Dialysis for old folks is expensive. Neonatal is expensive. ERs are expensive. Well there is always \”medical tourism\”. But where can we go?
It sounds to me that the US government is starting to become like the Canadian government who controls everything. Last time I checked US history this isn't what our Four Fathers fought for. The people are supposed to be in control, but apparently this whole country is lazy and just wants the government to do everything for them. Our freedom as we know it will also be lost. Anyone who can tell me otherwise, please…I'm all ears.
Of ALL ALL ALL ALL the advanced, industrialized democratic capitalistic countries, the US is the only only only only only country without some form of universal health care. People do NOT go bankrupt from medical expenses in Canada, the UK, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Australia, New Zealand, Austria, Germany, France, Finland, the Netherlands, etc.The public option is already a big compromise, we should have one payer universal health care. The private insurers ARE the problem. They spend all their time and effort denying claims, refusing care and excluding those with pre-existing conditions. We have tens of millions uninsured, we have tens of millions with inadequate insurance, we have millions losing jobs and losing health coverage. Private insurance had more than 50 years to cover everyone and to offer affordable insurance for all but they failed, they didn't do the job. Don't you right wingers get it, we have a health care crisis that's getting worse by the year?My God, there are so many stupid Americans who buy into the corporate BS about socialism and governmental control. Are you guys also against Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, S-CHIP, the VA? The recipients of these benefits like them, want them and would be very upset if they were ended.The police, fire fighters, public schools, public libraries, justice system, legal system, public roads, etc., are all examples of \”socialism.\”Do you not understand that we have a severe health crisis because of our screwed up private health insurance rip off non-system. People are suffering, people are dying because of a lack of health insurance or because they can only afford some crappy health insurance with a huge deductible. Even Americans with insurance can go bankrupt from medical expenses. About half of all personal bankruptcies are due to medical expenses in the US. That does not happen in Switzerland, Canada, France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Taiwan, etc.
A countrywide study released by the American Journal of Medicine:Sixty-two percent of US bankruptcies are from people with overwhelming medical bills and 75% of those had health insurance. It is also a given that you will lose coverage and not be able to get any even if you can afford the $1400 a month premium and $10,000 deductible.