Obama Speaks Out Against Misinformation On Health Care Reform

Along the lines of the previous post on fighting misinformation on health care reform, Barack Obama has devoted this week’s address (video above) to the topic. Here is a portion:

…let me explain what reform will mean for you. And let me start by dispelling the outlandish rumors that reform will promote euthanasia, cut Medicaid, or bring about a government takeover of health care. That’s simply not true. This isn’t about putting government in charge of your health insurance; it’s about putting you in charge of your health insurance. Under the reforms we seek, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.

And while reform is obviously essential for the 46 million Americans who don’t have health insurance, it will also provide more stability and security to the hundreds of millions who do. Right now, we have a system that works well for the insurance industry, but that doesn’t always work well for you. What we need, and what we will have when we pass health insurance reform, are consumer protections to make sure that those who have insurance are treated fairly and that insurance companies are held accountable.

We will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms, colonoscopies, or eye and foot exams for diabetics, so we can avoid chronic illnesses that cost too many lives and too much money.

We will stop insurance companies from denying coverage because of a person’s medical history. I will never forget watching my own mother, as she fought cancer in her final days, worrying about whether her insurer would claim her illness was a preexisting condition. I have met so many Americans who worry about the same thing. That’s why, under these reforms, insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage because of a previous illness or injury. And insurance companies will no longer be allowed to drop or water down coverage for someone who has become seriously ill. Your health insurance ought to be there for you when it counts – and reform will make sure it is.

With reform, insurance companies will also have to limit how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses. And we will stop insurance companies from placing arbitrary caps on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime because no one in America should go broke because of illness.

In the end, the debate about health insurance reform boils down to a choice between two approaches. The first is almost guaranteed to double health costs over the next decade, make millions more Americans uninsured, leave those with insurance vulnerable to arbitrary denials of coverage, and bankrupt state and federal governments. That’s the status quo. That’s the health care system we have right now.

So, we can either continue this approach, or we can choose another one – one that will protect people against unfair insurance practices; provide quality, affordable insurance to every American; and bring down rising costs that are swamping families, businesses, and our budgets. That’s the health care system we can bring about with reform.

There are certainly areas for disagreement with his plan but instead of engaging in honest debate the Republicans have concentrated on fighting by making outrageous claims which are simply untrue.

One portion of Obama’s argument has been open criticism because it is generally but not one hundred percent true. When Obama speaks about the ability to keep one’s own doctor or insurance he is highlighting the fact that his plan is based upon offering opportunities for those who do not have coverage or are unhappy with their current coverage. The plan will not automatically take away any one’s current coverage as some conservatives claim.

It is not a one hundred percent guarantee that nobody will wind up having to make changes. Some employers will change or drop  their current insurance in the future, but many companies are dropping coverage now. At present if a company drops coverage employees are forced to buy on the individual market, which is often difficult or impossible for those who are older or have medical problems. With this health care reform proposal, employees will have options for coverage.

It is always possible that a doctor will not participate with an individual plan. Today patients often have to change doctors because either their employer changes to a plan their doctor does not accept or because their doctor stops accepting a plan. Such situations might also continue if Obama’s plan is passed but individuals will have more options in health care coverage which will make it easier to find plans which their doctor participates in. Elimination of the more outrageous policies of health care plans will also reduce the chances that doctors will refuse to accept certain plans.

8 Comments

  1. 1
    Eric Dondero says:

    How do you explain the fact that Libertarians are the ones leading the charge against the Obama Health Care at Town Hall meetings across the Nation?

    Aren’t you supposed to be “Libertarian friendly”? Yet, Libertarians are unanimously and strenuously opposed to any and all government run health care.

    In fact, Liberals blogosphere-wide are now slamming Libertarian opposition to Obama Care.

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    Of course libertarians who take a knee jerk opposition to any government program would be opposing health care reform. Why do you need an explanation for that?

  3. 3
    Eric Dondero says:

    So then, if you’re condescendingly calling Libertarians “knee jerk,” than where does Ron Chusid’s famous “Libertarian friendly Liberal” side come into the equation.

    Condescension is more along the lines of hate-filled.

  4. 4
    Leslie Parsley says:

    Sadly, I think Obama is preaching to the choir. Only the people who want health care reform are listening. Those who don’t want it don’t listen. Even if they do listen, they  dismiss the president’s comments as a bunch of lies. They’ve made up their shallow minds that their grannies are going to be put to sleep.

  5. 5
    Ron Chusid says:

    No Eric, “knee jerk” in the context used here has nothing to do with hatred. It is a simple statement of fact that libertarians will automatically take the side against a government program regardless of the specifics of the issue.

  6. 7
    Eclectic Radical says:

    “How do you explain the fact that Libertarians are the ones leading the charge against the Obama Health Care at Town Hall meetings across the Nation?”
     
    To the best of my understanding, organized, partisan Republican activists are taking the lead in organizing and executing invasions of congressional town halls. Frequently, the protesters are not even from the district of the congressmen being targetted. The Republicans certainly take the credit for thise, and the Democrats are certainly blaming them.
     
    Organized libertarianism, such as it exists, is opposing government health care reform because it is government health care reform, not because it is government health care reform or government health care reform. The emphasis on the words makes a huge difference. This is where the description of ‘knee jerk’ comes in and there is nothing condescending about it.
     
    I would describe my own basic reaction to the possibility of dropping the public option as ‘knee jerk.’ Because I understand it is rooted in my political principles rather than my intellectualizing of the issue. Intellectually, I understand the need to go slow for political reasons. However, on a ‘knee jerk’ level, I hate that we’re not talking single payer.

  7. 8
    Ron Chusid says:

    Eclectic,

    I let that bit of nonsense from Eric go by because in his mind it is libertarians who are leading the charge. You need to understand how Eric thinks. He calls himself a libertarian but he is actually a far right Republican who has a handful of libertarian views. (Of course, as is noted in another comment, what he considers libertarian views are actually views held by many liberals and some conservatives and have nothing to do with defining libertarianism). To Eric other right wing Republicans are libertarians. Therefore from his perspective, something led by far right Republicans is being led by libertarians.

2 Trackbacks

Leave a comment