The blogosphere is having a field day with the previously planned informercial where Obama pitches healthcare reform aka Obamacare as is the media, so below are links and headlines for your reading enjoyment.
NYT with "Experts Dispute Some Points in Health Talk."
Wall Street Journal with "ObamaCare in Trouble."
On Monday, the Washington Post/ABC poll reported that 49% of Americans approve of his handling of health care while 44% disapprove. What many people missed is that those who strongly disapprove of the president’s approach on health care now outnumber those who strongly approve by 33% to 25%. That presages further decline. Already, 49% of independents disapprove of the president’s approach, up from 30% in April, a staggering shift in 11 weeks.
Mr. Obama is also slipping on the economy. Those who strongly disapprove now outnumber those who strongly approve of his handling of the economy (35% to 29%), of deficits (38% to 19%), and of unemployment (31% to 26%). On Tuesday, Gallup showed Mr. Obama’s personal approval was 55%, down from more than 60% a few weeks ago and lower than the 56% George W. Bush had at this point in his first term.
The Politico with "At big moment, Obama goes small"
The president’s remarks on his chosen subject, health care, were cautious and choreographed, hemmed in on one side by the calculations of his professional wordsmiths, on the other by the delicacy of negotiations with two houses of Congress.
He never detailed his own plan or named a single victim of America’s broken system, and he spoke largely in the abstractions of blue pills, red pills and legislative processes. It’s not easy to turn delivery system reform into a rallying cry for change, but at times, it was as if Obama wasn’t even trying.
His dryness was all the more striking by contrast with the press conference’s conclusion, when he suddenly re-engaged with a question that he’s spent much of his life mulling: race, in the form of the arrest of a black Harvard professor.
Despite Democrats attempts to blame Republicans for the delays being seen on getting a vote going on Obamacare, The Weekly Standard has a long list of Democratic politicians who are against Obamacare for one reason or another as well as their full statements as to why they won't vote for it.
Definite must read.
Slate with "Obama's Overreach":
He's still in the thrall of Orszagism! Here we're dramatically changing insurance (no more "preexisting conditions") and insuring the uninsured and creating a health care exchange and promoting a public option and generally telling everyone they can stop worrying about whether they will have coverage. It's all going to be deficit neutral over a ten year period. Why do we have to also dramatically change the "health care delivery system" at the same time (in order to save even more money after ten years)? Doesn't that undermine the reassuring message that if you like your health coverage, nothing will change? Sure. Nothing will change except the entire health care delivery system! Which is going to be redesigned! By experts! Maybe get rid of fee for service--Obama hinted at change along those line. All seemingly on the basis of a single article in the New Yorker that isn't nearly as convincing as it's made out to be. (I would like to see Dems apply Orszag's logic--that all Medicare expenses can obviously, without sacrifice be cut to the level of the cheapest provider--to the school system.) ...
I know I'd like universal health coverage. That's been debated ad nauseam. What hasn't been debated--what have been blessed mainly by pronouncements from on high couched in euphemisms and deception--are Orszag's "delivery system" changes. I'm worried that they will result in denial of treatments that may be useful at saving and prolonging lives. Obama's refusal at his press conference to declare that all covered treatments would still be covered is an example of what people worry about. And Obama knows--or even scarier, maybe he doesn't--that the difficult decisions don't involve cheap blue pills that are as good as red pills, but treatments that are the "best" but also the "most expensive"--including cancer drugs like Herceptin and Sutent. ...
The topic did get changed a bit during the Q & A segment of the Obama show.
NYT again with "Obama Wades Into a Volatile Racial Issue."
Obama: Cambridge police acted ‘stupidly’ -Ben Smith's Blog headline, to which many are pointing out Barack Obama didn't get the full story before putting his foot in his mouth.
Riehl World View takes the story apart piece by piece, with links.
Distractions aside, did his speech manage to change any monds one way or another? Doubtful.
Did it help give political cover to Democratic politicians that have become weary and wary of the cost factor as well as the controversial abortion issue involved?
Seems he didn't, because as The Hill reports "The House Energy and Commerce Committee canceled its healthcare markup session again Thursday."
The committee began its drafting sessions on Friday and Monday. But they were canceled in the following days as Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) negotiated with Blue Dog Democrats, who've complained the bill doesn't cut enough costs and puts too great a burden on employers.
It looks like the Senate, at least, will not be voting on this issue before their August vacations, which is when the politicians go home and get to face their constituents.
That is you.
Reminder from a previous piece:
Contact your Congressman, let them hear from you, loud and clear... NO Obamacare.
Then Contact your Senators and tell them the same thing, kill Obamacare, trash it and burn it.
.
