Obamateurism of the Day
posted at 8:05 am on September 23, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
You knew I was going to come back to this moment with Barack Obama and George Stephanopoulos, only because this one minute is practically an Obamateurism gold mine. How many goofs does Obama make in a single minute? I count four:
OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase.
People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…
OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. Any…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the…
OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…
STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”
OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.
Here are the goofs:
- Auto insurance is not required for anyone who doesn’t want to access publicly-owned roads by driving a car. Furthermore, no one is required to insure themselves. Technically speaking, they’re only required to buy liability insurance, which covers damage to the other driver(s).
- Stephanopoulos didn’t just “make up the language”. In the Baucus bill, the fine for failing to comply with the individual mandate is called — wait for it — an “excise tax”. It’s on page 29, Subtitle D, Shared Responsibility.
- If premiums go up by 10%, it’s still not a tax, because the money doesn’t go to the government, and people can choose to buy cheaper policies or none at all. Or at least they can at the moment ..
- Given all of the above, accusing Stephanopoulos of “stretching” by reading a dictionary definition of “tax” is a stretch of its own. And given Obama’s attempts to redefine the term, Stephanopoulos could have been considered a public service.
Did I miss any?
Got an Obamateurism of the Day? If you see a foul-up by Barack Obama, e-mail it to me at obamaisms@edmorrissey.com with the quote and the link to the Obamateurism. I’ll post the best Obamateurisms on a daily basis, depending on how many I receive. Include a link to your blog, and I’ll give some link love as well. And unlike Slate, I promise to end the feature when Barack Obama leaves office.
Illustrations by Chris Muir of Day by Day. Be sure to read the adventures of Sam, Zed, Damon, and Jan every day!
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
OT: Drudge has a link on Palin’s Asian economic speech.
BadgerHawk on September 23, 2009 at 8:10 AM
What really riles me is that he fully expects me to believe this crap he’s shoveling…
ladyingray on September 23, 2009 at 8:11 AM
Car insurance… let me see… doesn’t include my gas, oil changes, tire repairs/replacements, engine failures, washes, waxes. Yeah, just like car insurance.
CC
CapedConservative on September 23, 2009 at 8:11 AM
Didn’t “O” say “Miriam’s” dictionary?
Perhaps “O” is on a first name basis with
Mr.Mrs. Webster. :)Shy Guy on September 23, 2009 at 8:13 AM
The problem is that health insruance isn’t anything like auto insurance. Every year, the industry moves farther and farther away from actuarial statistics.
If health insurance was, in fact, more like auto insurance, that would weaken the power of the federal government. Obama doesn’t want that!
gryphon202 on September 23, 2009 at 8:15 AM
You also don’t have to buy auto insurance if you don’t own a car. If you don’t get sick, why do you need insurance and if you can put that money away in a savings account to pay for medical treatment, there’s no need for health insurance. You can always use the money for something that YOU want.
flytier on September 23, 2009 at 8:16 AM
In New York City
About Five Million people…
No Car Insurance
Haiku Guy on September 23, 2009 at 8:16 AM
The words mean what Zero SAYS they mean!
He WON, doncha know!
VelvetElvis on September 23, 2009 at 8:17 AM
Why did you have to bring out that dictionary thingie?
I just TOLD you that it’s not a tax and you aren’t willing to believe me?
Bishop on September 23, 2009 at 8:18 AM
Ed, you are correct. When the POTUS is winging it, on his own without TOTUS, he is a gold mine of obfuscation.
Unfortunately he is walking away with all of our gold, while we get the shaft.
Yoop on September 23, 2009 at 8:19 AM
Hopefully, if any of this craptacular legislation gets passed, it will be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.
Hopefully.
The problem with having the “elites” in charge is that they have no idea of how the real world works. All they have are theories and experiments, nothing practical to work with, and they quickly (or intentionally) forget that all of their experiments have real-life consequences for the rest of the country.
The hoi-poloi will only tolerate so much, however, before they take matters into their own hands to remedy the situation.
AW1 Tim on September 23, 2009 at 8:20 AM
Sounds like it went pretty well.
BigD on September 23, 2009 at 8:20 AM
Here’s possibly a new one, Ed:
I can choose to buy a car or not.
I only need car insurance if I buy a car (around here, at least…and then only if, as you say, I choose – as most do – to “access publicly-owned roads”).
Federally Mandated Healthcare Insurance? NOT SO MUCH.
If I am born (Cogito ergo sum), I must buy health insurance.
Am I missing something?
Lockstein13 on September 23, 2009 at 8:21 AM
WEBSTER’S DICTIONARY! NOT MERRIAM’S DICTIONARY!
Get that brain of yours in gear, Joker!
SagebrushPuppet on September 23, 2009 at 8:22 AM
Obama: George, it’s not a tax.
George: Umm, yes it is.
Obama: You can’t just make stuff up.
George: Like what, like the fact that you’re lying about calling a tax a tax?
Obama: Tax is a four letter word.
George: No, it’s three, it’s here in the dictionary.
Obama: Daaaaaayumn !
ted c on September 23, 2009 at 8:22 AM
Car insurance is to provide protection for the people we may damage. I know of no state that requires that we insure anything abouve that – It’s for protecting the other guy.
One key I havent heard yet is tht Obamacare atrikes at the heart of and interferes with our constitutional right clearly established by a few sick judges who declared they saw in the constitution some eminations from penumbras,
The anti- gov’t contrrol over your health choices ought to be fought on that issue first.
Don L on September 23, 2009 at 8:23 AM
What’s the alternative? If you disagree with the crap he is shoveling you are, by definition, a racist.
highhopes on September 23, 2009 at 8:24 AM
Read this carefully. This is how a boss talks to an employee when they’ve got something wrong.
It’s a perfect example of how he views the media, as state run stenographers, and a perfect example of his arrogance, lest we need more.
TXUS on September 23, 2009 at 8:25 AM
Well, so effen be it…
ladyingray on September 23, 2009 at 8:25 AM
Obama should take it as an example and look up some other terms: “profit”, “P/E ratio”, “economic risk vs. recklessness”, “investing vs. government spending”, “investing vs. speculating”…
forest on September 23, 2009 at 8:27 AM
Ed, you missed another element of the lies on auto insurance. People DO have to carry insurance on their cars beyond liability only; IF they have a lein. That is a requirement of the bank that carries the loan. It is still not a government requirement, but it does help illustrate that insurance is about protecting financial interests, not people or things. Auto insurance has never saved a life, or cost one. And health insurance can be compared to that in that it too is about money, not medicine.
MikeA on September 23, 2009 at 8:27 AM
Wow, health insurance is like car insurance? Really? I had no idea that if I punched somebody and broke his nose my health insurance would cover his medical bills. Heck, if health insurance really does that why do we need the government plan?
boomer on September 23, 2009 at 8:28 AM
Breaking News:
The White House will be revealing at a joint session of congress the new Official Dictionary that is to be taught in all schools public and private.
Sources say that this is a partisan effort headed up by Nancy Pelosi and Charles Rangle.
/
milwife88 on September 23, 2009 at 8:29 AM
They will give you a choice.
If you don’t have a body you won’t have to buy insurance.
Just turn it in.
It will be called C4C (Cash for Corpses).
Yoop on September 23, 2009 at 8:29 AM
Yes. Obama is going to reduce costs by making sure fewer and fewer people get born.
Kafir on September 23, 2009 at 8:31 AM
Regardless of how it’s labeled, making health insurance mandatory when there’s no reasonable public option offered will be a political disaster. Quite a few progressives have not yet realized the impact, and as far as I’ve been able to find, only one article spelled out the current Baucus proposal’s impact on people.
Until the specifics are discussed, the public won’t really weigh in. But that’s coming, and it’s going to be quite a burden on working poor families.
AnninCA on September 23, 2009 at 8:31 AM
Heh. So now, using a dictionary implies that you’re stretching a definition.
Tonus on September 23, 2009 at 8:32 AM
Another goof: It not ok if I have to cover the American citizen without health insurance if he gets into an accident. It is ok if I cover the ILLEGAL ALIEN who is using the ER as his family doctor.
ctmom on September 23, 2009 at 8:32 AM
Yep, and this is also the tone of a boss who gets outsmarted by an employee and so must obfuscate and bluster to try and explain himself.
Stephanopolous had to use a dictionary because Ogabe thought that by changing the term “tax” to “Happy Joy Fun Payment” the American people wouldn’t mind having the money removed from their wallets.
Bishop on September 23, 2009 at 8:33 AM
Isn’t this what George Orwell was writing against? How the hell do you “stretch” the definition of a word by using the definition of that word.
Also, if my mortgage payment going down “is like a tax cut”, then forcing me to spend more on health car has to be “like a tax increase.” You don’t get it both ways, Dear Leader.
rbj on September 23, 2009 at 8:35 AM
But that appears to be part of Obama’s argument. If you do not get health insurance, but get sick, you are driving up the other guy’s cost, therefore damaging him.
Obama is just protecting everyone from you. /s
Yoop on September 23, 2009 at 8:36 AM
lol Isnt that Happy happy, joy, joy fun payment?
becki51758 on September 23, 2009 at 8:37 AM
This is all easily explained. Taxes are things that the Obama administration do not pay, so they don’t really know what they are. Since some of the Obama administration might one day have to participate in the ObamaCare scheme, it cannot possibly be a tax because, again, they don’t pay those.
myrenovations on September 23, 2009 at 8:38 AM
Only for cats & dogs, and don’t for a minute think that the government won’t next require you to have health insurance on your pets! It’s for the children, or something…
AW1 Tim on September 23, 2009 at 8:39 AM
It is yeoman’s work trying to keep track of this guy’s lies, evasions, strawmen and startling incompetence and we appreciate it.
Just wish it wasn’t necessary.
Maybe the next time, the American people will have a little more respect for their right to vote and for our country.
NoDonkey on September 23, 2009 at 8:40 AM
You are only entitled to the extra “happy” and “joy” if you make more than $250,000 per year.
Yoop on September 23, 2009 at 8:40 AM
Since he’s such a slick salesman and likes appearing on TV so much, after the 2012 election, perhaps Barry would do well to look for a job as a spokesperson for ShamWow or Chop-O-Matic.
Barb Dwyer on September 23, 2009 at 8:40 AM
Once the state becomes the provider of all healthcare, it naturally has an interest in minimizing costs, and the fewer new lives to cover the lower the costs.
That’s exactly the reason used in China to justify birth rationing, or as we call it, mandatory abortion.
TXUS on September 23, 2009 at 8:40 AM
Yeh Ed….you missed the one about Obama taxing my patience.
PatriotRider on September 23, 2009 at 8:42 AM
Since Obama has claimed that any bill he signs will have to be deficit-neutral, tax credits extended to those to help pay for premiums must be offset by revenue, i.e. taxes imposed on those who fail to heed the mandate.
ICBM on September 23, 2009 at 8:43 AM
I think George quoted from Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (presumably, the most recent edition–the 11th). I doubt Obama thinks Merriam is the first name of someone named Merriam Webster, but he used a shorthand reference to a very common dictionary that I haven’t seen used before. The normal shorthand is Merriam-Webster’s–as George put it.
Just another example that Obama really isn’t that gifted when he’s off a script.
BuckeyeSam on September 23, 2009 at 8:47 AM
Remember- your cost of healthcare will not increase one dime but it is going to cost millions to pay for all the uninsured. “Happy Joy Fun Payment” is the filthy liar’s way of pretending to keep his often repeated lie. Stenographers like George should know better than to qestion the dictator on such matters.
highhopes on September 23, 2009 at 8:48 AM
No, the writers kept it short for Ogabe’s sake; he would just end up giving a speech and saying, “Happy Joy…uh…Pay Happy Hap….er…Joy Joy Joy I’m Happy…um…Payment Joy…just get that dictionary out of my face!”
Bishop on September 23, 2009 at 8:48 AM
Not true, Barry. Here in AZ there are thousands of illegal aliens who have no auto insurance driving on our public roads. It’s just one of many of our laws that they routinely ignore with impunity. And those are the so-called “good” illegal aliens . . . you know, the “law-abiding” ones who are just here to build a better life for themselves and their children, as Geraldo likes to whine. They’re the ones who will smash up your car and then flee the scene. (Good thing they’re so “law-abiding” — right?).
AZCoyote on September 23, 2009 at 8:51 AM
When Bubba tried to redefine “is” it was sad and a little amusing. This is pathetic and it shows his contempt of the American people.
sheriff246 on September 23, 2009 at 8:52 AM
It’s by no means a stretch by Stephanopolis. Setting terms is the root for having a debate, or facilitating a debate that has any meaning. He had to back to the dictionary because Obama wants to call an act by something other than what it is. I’m surprised the Dems haven’t attempted to call this tax an investment yet.
Dusty on September 23, 2009 at 8:53 AM
What I’m about to say is conservative heresy, and I know it. I just ask that you guys hear me out before you judge.
Here it is: 99% of Obamacare is crap; but we should be supporting mandates.
Yes, mandates are anti-free-market because they require people to buy something whether they want to or not. But when someone doesn’t buy insurance, then gets sick or hurt, I am forced to buy their medical care! That’s not exactly free-market, either; it just has the added negative of being grossly unfair.
We have 3 alternatives:
1. Let those who can’t PROVE they have insurance die outside our hospital doors (this isn’t going to happen, and frankly it SHOULDN’T happen. You don’t deserve to die of a ruptured appendix for a not paying your health insurance premium, or not having the card with you, or the insurance company having a computer glitch);
2. Force the responsible (yet one more time) to pay for the irresponsible; or
3. Force everyone to be responsible for themselves.
It isn’t exactly free-market purity, and that does bother me. It just bothers me LESS than the alternatives.
And the mandates need to be done in conjunction with other GOOD reforms — for starters, allowing insurers to sell a high-deductible catastrophic care policy for those who want to buy as little insurance as possible; and it should be priced according to THEIR risk; i.e. they shouldn’t have to subsidize care for us old fogies with both FICA and insurance premiums.
But requiring me to pay for someone else’s medical care is just as much a tax as requiring everyone to insure themselves.
RegularJoe on September 23, 2009 at 8:54 AM
And if you don’t buy the gov’t-mandated pet insurance, then one of Obama’s Czars (I forget the guy’s name — he’s the nut who says animals should have the right to sue humans) will appoint a federal lawyer to represent little Fido or Fluffy in a lawsuit against you.
AZCoyote on September 23, 2009 at 8:56 AM
Not only is this clearly a tax, but it’s probably the most coercive and inappropriate tax I can think of. Other taxes technically can be avoided without penalty or requirement to buy anything. Nobody is required to have a car, a job, or even buy things.
What Obama is proposing is even worse than the “death tax, it’s an existence tax.
forest on September 23, 2009 at 8:56 AM
Now George, just stop it. We almost have full control over the populace.
John the Libertarian on September 23, 2009 at 8:57 AM
Ya see, maybe Erkel don’t like dictionaries, because they are racist in nature……..like white being defined as good and pure, and black being evil and dark.
That’s a stretch too, eh ????
Jerome Horwitz on September 23, 2009 at 9:00 AM
Obama’s schtick is straight out of George Orwell’s Animal Farm. I can’t believe ANYONE seriously took Obama’s words with any credibility at all.
jwolf on September 23, 2009 at 9:00 AM
I guess you could call the strategy of making sure you don’t come to the attention of the authorties as “law abiding” though that whole illegally crossing the border thing sorta puts a crimp in “law-abiding” behavior.
Because of the uninsured drivers in New Orleans, my auto insurance when down by hundreds when I moved from there to a major metropolitan area (the agent thought it was some kind of a computer glitch). The same thing will happen with mandatory health care. The same people who drive around without insurance will not be getting health coverage. There is no reason to believe that the feds will actually fine the slackers so they will get away with their behavior up until they need catastrophic coverage- which you and I will be paying for.
highhopes on September 23, 2009 at 9:02 AM
As we all know, even those who won’t admit it, President Obama seemingly can’t say anything without lying, exaggerating or lying by omission. To me the final blow to ignoring anything he says were his statements on his daughter’s illness diagnoses and the false story about the man who died because his insurance dropped him. Yes, I know most, if not all, politicians shade the truth to appeal to audiences; however based on my experience during my over six decades of life with involvement with all too many congenital liars, or whatever one calls someone who lies about anything that makes his position/story more believable, President Obama is one. Why do I say that, well it is because he lies when there is no reason other than for personal or political advantage.
amr on September 23, 2009 at 9:02 AM
I can’t believe he went on five Sunday morning shows to repeat the same set of lies that hasn’t been working to date. The filthy liar should have just had the FCC jam all the airwaves and beamed out his propaganda on all channels at the same time.
highhopes on September 23, 2009 at 9:03 AM
He knows how to keep his birth certificate, college transcripts, and health records from seeing daylight, but he don’t know jack about much else; like how to speak English like an educated man.
This is embarrassing. It doesn’t really say anything, but he does manage to lie and divulge his ignorance.
State-mandated expenses are not really expenses, to say nothing of the infringement upon the liberty to run one’s life and dispose of one’s property as one sees fit.
What does “it’s” refer to?
Don’t hospitals and docs bill uninsured patients?
“No one should have to help you anymore than everyone must have auto insurance. That’s what this says.
Says you. To get on the raod I have to pay gas tax, license and registration fees, and liability insurance. I don’t need to drive, and it isn’t a right. But everyone needs healthcare, so forcing everyone to have a certain kind, and prohibiting other kinds, is not merely a tax increase but tyranny.
Akzed on September 23, 2009 at 9:04 AM
Excuse me? Doesn’t Obama care have US Taxpayers paying for premiums for those who can’t afford those premiums? Aren’t there subsidies up the wazoo in Obama care? Aren’t we picking up (according to Obama’s numbers) 47 million Americas (includes 22 million illegals) who don’t have insurance and paying for them?
katablog.com on September 23, 2009 at 9:05 AM
This is why it’s impossible to have serious debate with the Left. They deny what they do, forget what they’ve done and, if all else fails, simply change definitions at will to suit their purposes.
Track-A-'Crat on September 23, 2009 at 9:08 AM
spot on
cmsinaz on September 23, 2009 at 9:09 AM
The “Orwell” has landed. It means EXACTLY that all the producers will have to pay for the looters and loafers.
Mojave Mark on September 23, 2009 at 9:11 AM
Don’t forget that some states only require proof of financial responsibility, not specific proof of insurance. My state allows the option of posting a bond with the Department of Revenue in lieu of purchasing liability insurance. There is no possible way of interpreting this option as a tax, Barry…
Tongueboy on September 23, 2009 at 9:11 AM
Shading the truth is essentially giving another plausible version of the same facts. To claim that a guy was killed off by his insurance when the reality was that he never missed a treatment is flat-out fraud.
highhopes on September 23, 2009 at 9:12 AM
And this is precisely what all community organizers are well aware of: that the rest of us are still going to pay for the slackers.
Any mandatory penalty is only going to be paid by those with reportable, taxable income. The millions out there who pay no taxes or who live in the shadows and report no income, will once again be allowed to skate.
TXUS on September 23, 2009 at 9:13 AM
Healthcare Reform Must Include Full Participation by Licensed Professional Insurance Agents – Consumers Must Have Full Access to Independent Insurance Agents in Any Health Care Proposal Devised by Congress
WASHINGTON — As the debate on healthcare reform continues in Congress, the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents (PIA) is again reminding lawmakers that consumers must not be denied access to the advice of licensed, professional, independent insurance agents in any reform plan devised by Congress.
One initial proposal for health insurance exchanges would have barred the participation of all licensed insurance agents, instead utilizing unlicensed individuals or community groups with no expertise in health insurance. Subsequently, during hearings on America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200) in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, an amendment was passed that gives explicit authority to insurance agents to sell insurance in any exchange that the legislation may create.
“We find it incredible that any of the healthcare bills would attempt to ban the participation of licensed, professional, independent insurance agents,” said PIA National President Kenneth R. Auerbach, Esq. “In no other area is being certified and licensed considered a disqualifying factor. That’s like saying physicians cannot have medical accreditation, attorneys cannot be members of the Bar or auto mechanics cannot be certified technicians.”
“When the prohibition was included in one of the bills, it was suggested that unlicensed individuals with no training or expertise in health insurance would better serve as so-called ‘navigators,’ helping people choose which health plan they participate in,” Auerbach said. “Professional, independent insurance agents already help their customers navigate the health insurance choices that are currently available to them. The added complexity of a reformed system will make such assistance even more critical.”
The House amendment, sponsored by Blue Dog Democrats Reps. Charlie Melancon (D-La.), Mike Ross (D-Ar.), Baron Hill (D-Ind.), Jim Matheson (D-Utah), Zack Space (D-Ohio), John Barrow (D-Ga.) and Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), guarantees that agents and brokers can participate in the process.
“We thank the Blue Dog members of the House for ensuring that American consumers will not be denied the services of their own independent insurance agents under healthcare reform,” said PIA National President-elect Jon D. Spalding. “We are especially grateful to Rep. Melancon of Louisiana, who knows the importance of this issue because he is a former insurance agent and member of PIA.”
PIA will continue to focus its efforts on assuring that language enabling consumers to utilize the services of their professional insurance agents in any new healthcare environment remains included and intact as the legislative process continues. http://www.pianet.com.
~~
They want people who know what they’re doing prohibited from involvement. ACORN will be allowed, but not your agent. It’s ok for now, but the tyrants’ intentions are clear.
Akzed on September 23, 2009 at 9:14 AM
STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. The dictionary says: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”
OBAMA: Have you seen the latest edition of the Newspeak Dictionary?
STEPHANOPOULOS: No, we’re still using Merriam Webster’s
OBAMA: A few advance copies have been segregated. I have one myself. You might be interested. There are some plus skillful new developments.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Oh, well, then THAT makes sense. I understand now.
j_galt on September 23, 2009 at 9:15 AM
Sure it is and I don’t blame you for objecting. BUT, according to Obama, these people can’t afford insurance and those showing up at hospital emergency rooms who don’t pay their bills are either indigent or illegal. So how does requiring them to have insurance that we will all subsidize change anything?
The insurance companies know the same number of people are going to get sick. Many of them are just lazy enough that they will still go to the emergency room for a cold. You will still pay for it (through paying their premiums) PLUS under Obamacare your insurance will now be under government control!
katablog.com on September 23, 2009 at 9:15 AM
Someone already pointed this out but let me put it differently.
If you really feel this way, then why are you all about progressive taxation and redistribution of wealth?
Daggett on September 23, 2009 at 9:16 AM
That’s the best phrase I’ve seen for describing the mandate.
I agree that taxpayers and insurance holders already pay for the uninsured in some way. But forcing taxpaying citizens to buy insurance or pay a tax isn’t the solution.
Much of the uninsured cost comes from illegals using ERs like their personal physician. Requiring legal citizens to buy insurance or pay a tax isn’t going to change that. Uninsured illegals are still going to flood ERs, shifting those costs onto everyone else.
Why not allow (and even encourage) ERs to turn away uninsured patients who aren’t there for genuine emergencies? This goes back to tort reform… The reason hospitals don’t do this is because they are afraid of getting sued.
People like to assume that every person (legal or illegial, rich or poor) without health insurance is a financial burden on those of us with health insurance. And that simply isn’t the case. Some people choose to pay for care themselves.
Many people are young and healthy. So why not encourage them to buy catastrophic coverage only? Why not offer incentives for private companies to expand things like the Walmart clinics so these people have better options for non-emergency care?
Meezles on September 23, 2009 at 9:23 AM
Listen to what he acutally said, “if you get hit by a bus”. The bus driver and owner are MANDATED to have insurance. So even in the President’s example he is full of sh*t.
If you are a millionaire scientologist, exactly why do you need health insurance that covers a $100 medical exam?
I would even agree that MOST people SHOULD have catastrophic health insurance, for issues over $250,000. But the plans on the table OUTLAW high deductible plans and mandate that it start at less than $2k. Can you imagine a home owner with a paid for $2M home required to have a $50 deductible?
I would be for a nationally available, government backed (not run) set of plans for $300k and above. Maybe even added as a SS benefit.
barnone on September 23, 2009 at 9:25 AM
One of the weakest arguments I’ve ever heard. Why do people insist on calling this guy “brilliant” and “very smart”? He’s not. He’s a good talker and that’s basically it.
By the way… I’ve never heard anyone casually refer to the Merriam-Webster dictionary as anything other than “Webster’s”. Have you?
princetrumpet on September 23, 2009 at 9:25 AM
Hold on there a minute, Barack, you mean that I no longer have to carry the burden of medical coverage for unwed mothers who represent the 3rd or 4th generation of welfare recipients in a single family?
That’s AWESOME!
Will that be reflected in my next paycheck?
David2.0 on September 23, 2009 at 9:25 AM
I am stealing that!
Great phrase
barnone on September 23, 2009 at 9:26 AM
Silly conservatives. There’s no such thing as a “tax” anymore. The new term is “your fair shair.”
Onus on September 23, 2009 at 9:29 AM
I loathe Obama as much as anyone else–personally and politically. And I agree entirely with Ed’s first sentence. But I have a bit of a quibble with the second and third sentences.
As Ed says, auto liability insurance is intended to provide protection for harm drivers may do to specific persons. Drivers are personally liable for injury they cause to others, and auto liability insurance is intended to provide at least some compensation to others if drivers have no (or insufficient) assets.
With mandated health insurance along the lines of Obamacare, the insured (rather than someone else) will, in the first instance, be the person suffering physically. Still, one of Obama’s arguments is that the insurance is necessary so that insureds don’t harm society as a whole (as opposed to specific persons) by becoming a public charge if insured don’t have (or insufficient) assets.
As I see it, Obama’s attempt to analogize health insurance to auto liability insurance fails as far as Ed’s first sentence is concerned. With regard to Ed’s second and third sentences, however, Obama’s analogy makes it part of the way, but it’s still not close enough to be persuasive. The reason it’s not persuasive is that Obama’s “public charge” argument would mean that the insurance mandate would be constructed in a manner that would require people to acquire only catastrophic insurance, which would cost insured much less than what’s being proposed.
In the end, until the insurance mandate is trimmed down to a requirement that people maintain a certain level of catastrophic coverage, as opposed to the much more expensive soup-to-nuts coverage Obama wants, Obama’s analogy isn’t worth even discussing.
Obama’s analogy is simple-minded and suggests one or both of two things: Obama just doesn’t understand any of these issues, and Obamacare has nothing to do with solving problems–it’s all about control.
Shifting gears, Gingrich was on BOR last night, and he had three suggestions (without mentioning tort reform) that make too much sense–add transparency to all healthcare-related costs, sale of insurance across state lines, and a commitment to ferret out Medicare/Medicaid fraud and abuse.
If I were Obama, I’d engage Gingrich and his American Solutions to ferret out the fraud and abuse. If left to the Obama administration, it will be like Geraldo opening the Capone vault.
BuckeyeSam on September 23, 2009 at 9:30 AM
Stephanopoulos is great to watch when he’s on his A game. I sense he can eat Obama alive if he wanted to, but restrains himself for the sake of ‘civility’ and/or rather his cocktail elite membership card. Guess the word is out to treat the president like one of Jerry’s kids when he’s without TOTUS.
RepubChica on September 23, 2009 at 9:32 AM
Quote of the Day #1
Onus on September 23, 2009 at 9:37 AM
That was part of my point. So help me he said “Miriam’s”. Hard to call at the 55 second mark.
Shy Guy on September 23, 2009 at 9:42 AM
No, because Jerry’s kids have neuromuscular problems. Obama’s problem is psychological. I think it’s called NPD.
The Monster on September 23, 2009 at 9:43 AM
It is always taxing to watch, or hear, Obama.
I would like to name it as a new Sydrome.
Barry-motor ataxia.
Where you simply substitute Barry for loco.
profitsbeard on September 23, 2009 at 9:50 AM
Yes, there are people who can’t afford insurance (my daughter is one; I pay her premiums so that if she gets seriously ill or injured she’ll be able to get care without me going into crazy debt). But there are also people — other conservatives tell us around 10 million — who COULD afford it, but want to spend the money on something else — cigs, trips, a bigger house, whatever. Those things are okay if you can afford them, but those people need to do the responsible thing, and pay for their insurance FIRST.
RegularJoe on September 23, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Obama can fix his gaffes pretty simply, in the same way that local governments here in California are getting around Prop 13 (property tax rate increase cap) by converting things that used to be taxes into fees. For example, city garbage collection where I live used to be part of the property tax, and was capped by Prop 13, but the city now calls it out as a fee (direct service to the property owner) and charges it separately — without reducing the property tax by the corresponding amount.
unclesmrgol on September 23, 2009 at 9:52 AM
Obama quadruples down on arrogance. And their are plenty of lazy idiots who believe every word of his lies.
csdeven on September 23, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Let me be clear George, only I can make up language and decide if it’s called a tax increase. Not you, not the Republicans, not the American people,not even the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Only me, me, me the great Barack Obama, so don’t doubt me, ever again.
la.rt.wngr on September 23, 2009 at 9:59 AM
As far as I’m concerned what Obama did there is flat out lie. It is demeaning, atrocious and pathetic. I see this little snippet of interview as indicative of this entire administration – when they don’t like the truth, they belittle and chastise the teller of truth, then they offer a lie to replace the truth, all the while talking down in the most patronizing way possible. I can tell you, I’d have been tempted to assault the Moron-in-Chief with a large jar of sour pickles, dress him in a french maid outfit and give him a three-stooges poke to the eyes. What a bloody arse he is. I am ashamed to be a citizen of a country that tolerates his spew.
WashingtonsWake on September 23, 2009 at 10:01 AM
No. He. Isn’t.
He is a good reader, with a good voice.
Off the teleprompter I have yet to hear him provide any evidence of being a “good talker”.
Yoop on September 23, 2009 at 10:04 AM
I love Obama’s reasoning here. “Because you looked up something in the dictionary, you’re stretching. If you weren’t stretching…you wouldn’t have looked up something in the dictionary.”
He makes no effort at refutation.
When I was in debate, definitions were absolutely necessary to having a clean and effective round. But for liberals, confusing is the stuff that victory is made of. At least, they call it victory.
Aronne on September 23, 2009 at 10:10 AM
he’s not even that good of a reader, he’s mediocre. Frankly, I don’t think he’s a much better speaker than Bush, he just gets better press and no one calls him on all his little slips. When it comes to depth of thought and reasoning, I can not believe I’m saying this, but Bush is far more intelligent and philosophically consistent. (No, i do not agree with Bush on much..but still)
WashingtonsWake on September 23, 2009 at 10:18 AM
“Soylent Green”.
Johan Klaus on September 23, 2009 at 10:18 AM
2 items of gold that shows how ignorant this man is:
1)Does anyone have auto insurance to cover a car’s preventive maintenance…like oil changes? Of course not, yet BO stupidly compares P & C insurance to health insurance. That is like comparing apples to oranges, both are fruit and that’s about it.
2)Insurance is one of the most heavily regulated industries. You think all “profits” go to salaries? Uh, what about reserves that are mandated by both federal and state? Reserves are an enormous amount of “profit”.
Here is the theory: BO and his statists are drooling over the reserves. They want to get their hands on that money to distribute and prop up their agenda.
jbh45 on September 23, 2009 at 10:23 AM
I think his lying is starting to get to him. I’ve never seen the fool look so uncomfortable reading a teleprompter as he was at the UN this morning. Maybe he’s even starting to have a hard time believing the crap and wading thru the bullchit it’s getting so deep.
Griz on September 23, 2009 at 10:40 AM
Does this sound to anyone else like Clinton and his attempts to define the term “is?” It amazes me that President Obama is still playing these semantics games. One reason he was elected was because he came off much more sincere than McCain did. Granted, if you looked at his history as a politician, you could see through his statements. However, if one was a rather uninformed voter (like the majority of Americans), he seemed sincere. He has seriously undermined his credibility in the last 3-6 months with games like he is playing in this clip. He is missing his ability to come across as being honest and that is why the American public is beginning to disapprove of the job he is doing as President.
Conservative in NOVA on September 23, 2009 at 10:40 AM
You see that light complexion on Stephanopoulus? HE’S DEFINITELY RACIST!
Cybergeezer on September 23, 2009 at 10:45 AM
I don’t know if it’s an official Obamteurism or not, but comparing health insurance to auto insurance in the first place is kind of like when he used the USPS as an example of a government-run operation to emulate. Right now, I can search dozens of companies online to purchase auto insurance. Coverages, deductibles, roadside assistance, etc. I get to choose which company I go with, and the premium I pay. Using a free market solution to compare to a convoluted governmental mandate is going to [hopefully] cause people to wonder why one type of insurance is treated one way, and another type a completely different way.
Left Coast Right Mind on September 23, 2009 at 11:06 AM
I’m sorry but you may have overlooked something. Czar Holdren has assured that complusory abortion* [1970s language] IS constitutional. Holdren would use sustainable well-being *[January 2008language] as a guiding principle that could be utilized to set targets for acceptable population growth. Throughout history the undesirables are always the first to go.
FREEDOM!
Blacksmith8 on September 23, 2009 at 11:08 AM
He looks stoned.
noblejones on September 23, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Maybe I can help you out there…..but then again, I seem to always be on the receiving end of those
Jerome Horwitz on September 23, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Meezles on September 23, 2009 at 9:23 AM
Why not allow (and even encourage) ERs to turn away uninsured patients who aren’t there for genuine emergencies? This goes back to tort reform… The reason hospitals don’t do this is because they are afraid of getting sued.
They can’t by law and their oath, but the law is supreme. The federal courts have ruled that illegals must be treated in ERs; the SCOTUS let that position stand by not ruling. Basically since the hospitals serve the public, are non-profit and receive government money and tax exemptions, they have to cover all the people, even illegals.
So far doctors who receive Medicare and Medicaid payments have escaped this requirement. Doctors’ offices are for profit businesses that can pick and chose their patients, so that may be the difference. So if we get government mandated care, the courts may broaden their ruling and/or our congress and president will grant another amnesty as in 1986 and make them all citizens as Obama has hinted. That worked so well in 1986 that by giving amnesty to 3,000,000 we “reduced” illegals invading our county to just over 12,000,000. Government logic in action.
amr on September 23, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Two legs good! Four legs bad!
Unfortunately not everyone has read Animal Farm.
Goldenavatar on September 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM
If Obama was honest he would have countered Stephanopoulos’s dictionary with Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass
agmartin on September 23, 2009 at 11:42 AM
Yes, the entire segment on ACORN, and him “not paying that much attention” is fodder for Obamateurisms for a Week.
He is the biggest Liar the world has ever witnessed, but doesn’t care because it’s all about him, and he knows the media will let him skate, while he can still blame them. He knows they’re blindly in love, and more.
Schadenfreude on September 23, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »