Book of the Month

Deadman's picture

Obama Health Care Town Hall: When Change Meets Shout

by Deadman 8/11/2009 - 1:12 pm   |

Obama is about to hold his first town hall meeting to help sell his health care reform plan. Will it be a more controlled affair than the disasters that have taken place in other similar meetings throughout this great nation of ours?

When I saw what happened in my own hometown city of St. Louis last week, where protesters shouted down a town hall meeting being held by Russ Carnahan, it made me sick. You can't even hear the politicians talk, and the shouters from the audience are just as incomprehensible. It ended in arrests and scuffles.

i will have a more detailed posting on the Decibelization of Politics later today (hopeully) but for now I want to watch the Obama town hall. Here's hoping he's allowed to speak and answer tough questions without being drowned out.

 

See video

Quick thoughts on the Obama meeting: I still say he isn't passionate enough about the need for change, but I thought it was a solid performance by Obama, especially at the end when he compared the options Congressmen have versus the flawed system most of the rest of us have.

He at least addressed the other side, dismissing some of the more misleading arguments against reform while being respectful of those which actually have some legitmacy.

The civility of the meeting was a pleasant surprise, and I thought it was wise of Obama to focus on skeptics in the audience. I do wonder how they were able to silence the shouters (is that just New Hampshirites being cooler than most of the rest of the nation?) and worry that to independents or undecideds the meeting felt too much like a scripted, controlled campaign rally than a genuine town hall meeting.

What did you all think of the meeting?

by Deadman 8/11/2009 - 3:02 pm

Ok, finally watched the town hall and I was rather underwhelmed.  But in his defense, it's hard to be passionate about change when all he's really doing (like since the campaign) is selling the need for reform in the big picture.  At some point you have to stop campaigning and start governing.  Take a real stand or position.  Advocate for something besides generalities.  The opponents of healthcare reform are already revved up. There are lots of people on the sidelines waiting for the details.  Without real specifics it will be hard to get equal passion from the people on other side.

by dijamo 8/11/2009 - 10:25 pm (re: Deadman)

dijamo: I agree with you that Obama is trying to have his cake and eat it too in the sense that while he is talking reform, he isn't talking specfics.  And I too fear that without taking a real stand on a reform issue no big changes that need to get done will get done.

This brings up a common conflict I have in my reasoning toward the Obama administration:  is it better to get the ball rolling on reform without much meaninful reform (i.e. the corporate give away known as the Cap and Trade bill) or is it better to take a hard line stance of genuine reform?

by Larry Jankens 8/11/2009 - 10:49 pm (re: dijamo)

For me, cap and trade is an area where some watered down reform now can lead to real reform later on (I'm guessing @ 2013). If we pass a bad health care reform bill just to show we got something passed that doesn't bring down costs or include a real public option, we'd be wasting a trillion dollars with very little to show for it. A real public option might be first step towards single payer maybe if the country decides to go that route if people figure out gov't healthcare works and is less expensive/cumbersome than private companies. Some pseudo-public option "non-profit" healthcare collective is a half step doomed to failure, and in the immortal words of Big Daddy Kane: Ain't No Half Steppin'. Financially I don't think we could recover from bad reform. Politically if we screw this up, say buh-bye to universal healthcare. I'd rather see us go really minor with reform: no pre-existing conditions exclusions, no dropping coverage because someone gets sick, regulations on price/out of pocket maximums, than pass a bill mandating people be covered under the private system and basically subsidize the insurance companies.

by dijamo 8/12/2009 - 12:48 am (re: Larry Jankens)

First and foremost, props on working Big Daddy Kane into a comment.  I'll try to reference Biz Markie one of these days.

For me, cap and trade is an area where some watered down reform now can lead to real reform later on (I'm guessing @ 2013). If we pass a bad health care reform bill just to show we got something passed that doesn't bring down costs or include a real public option, we'd be wasting a trillion dollars with very little to show for it.

Wouldn't passing a bad cap and trade law do the same thing as passing bad healthcare reform? i.e. It won't bring down our effect on the environment and will waste trillions of dollars.  Bad healthcare reform won't bring down the high prices of healthcare and will waste trillions of dollars.  Why can't watered down healthcare reform later lead to genuine reform?  (asking not in an argumentative fashion, rather in an honestly curious way)

Like I said, I honestly don't know whether to be angry at ineffectual reforms or happy that they are the first steps in ultimately solving the problem. 

 

by Larry Jankens 8/12/2009 - 11:00 am (re: dijamo)

I'm with you in all regards here. I don't get the distinction between insufficient environmental reform and insufficient healthcare reform. I'm also not sure whether insufficient reform can be a first step in solving the problem or if it will only make it harder for sufficient reform to occur. I suspect the former, however. Here's the flip side to dijamo's argument, in my opinion: if we pass trivial reform and it doesn't make things worse then maybe the public won't get so angry about later reform. Of course, I realize that might just be a bit Pollyanna of me.

by Nebton 8/12/2009 - 11:17 am (re: Larry Jankens)

I agree that incrementalism is not as bankrupt as Dijamo suggests.  The great political failure of 1993 was worse and taught far worse lessons all around.

by Articleman 8/12/2009 - 11:32 am (re: Nebton)

In the real political world, incremental change is sometimes the most you can hope for. But we should all realize that the "public option" was already an incrementalist approach. And the danger now is that it could be watered down still further or completely gutted.

At some point, the legislation could offer only the illusion of reform, and it won't much matter whether it passes or not. Then give the health-care system another few years to collapse from within, and maybe the voters will catch on that they need single-payer after all.

by acanuck 8/12/2009 - 9:33 pm (re: Articleman)

I agree that if there is not a public option now, rising costs are likely to create a stronger reform in 10 to 15 years.

by Articleman 8/12/2009 - 9:51 pm (re: acanuck)

If the public option gets killed, universal health care will be Hillary's one and only plank in 2016. As usual, she'll read the tea leaves first. But it's conceivable the country's mood will have changed so much, she'll bet the farm on a single-payer system.

by acanuck 8/13/2009 - 3:29 am (re: Articleman)

Latest Comments

more