Obama aims to take control of health care debate
Photo 
President Barack Obama waves as he walks across the South Lawn of the White House prior to his departure on Marine One helicopter in Washington, Wednesday.
WASHINGTON — Aside from State of the Union speeches, presidents rarely use joint sessions of Congress as backdrops for their remarks to the nation.
But President Barack Obama will do just that next week to discuss health care. He hopes to gain control of a high-stakes debate that has been slipping from his grasp under relentless Republican-led attacks.
Scheduling of the speech for Wednesday, just a day after lawmakers return from their August recess, underscores the determination of the White House to confront critics of Obama's overhaul proposals and to buck up supporters who have been thrown on the defensive. Allies have been urging the president to be more specific about his plans and to take a greater role in the debate, and aides have signaled he will do that in the address to a joint session of Congress in the House chamber.
The speech's timing also suggests that top Democrats have all but given up hope for a bipartisan breakthrough by Senate Finance Committee negotiators. The White House had given those six lawmakers until Sept. 15 to draft a plan, but next week's speech comes well ahead of that deadline.
It follows an August recess in which critics of Obama's health proposals dominated many public forums. Approval ratings for Obama, and for his health care proposals, dropped during the month.
White House senior adviser David Axelrod told reporters Wednesday, "We believe this is the best way to kick off the final discussions, the final debate, and bring this thing to a close in a way that is meaningful."
Listeners to Obama's address will have "a clear sense of what he proposes and what health care reform is not," Axelrod said. He declined to offer details of what the president might discuss.
Axelrod said earlier that all the key ideas for revising health care are "on the table," suggesting Obama will not offer major new proposals.
But he may talk more specifically about his top priorities, and perhaps add details to pending plans, to save a high-profile initiative whose defeat would deliver a huge blow to his young presidency.
Many advocates of sweeping health care changes — which would include health coverage for virtually every American, greater competition among insurers and incentives to increase the quality of care instead of the number of medical procedures performed — welcomed the president's more direct role. Obama and congressional Democrats clearly lost momentum during the August recess, they say, and the president's high profile and still-considerable personal popularity are needed to change the dynamic.
"He's got to get into the nitty-gritty and embrace very concrete proposals," said Ralph Neas, head of the National Coalition on Health Care.
It's far from clear that Obama's speech will satisfy grumbling liberals. For instance, he consistently has refused to insist on a government-run program to compete with private health insurers, a top goal of liberals, even though he says he prefers such an option.
Axelrod called the public option important, but stopped short of saying it was essential to a final bill.
Several lawmakers say Obama must convincingly show that he can reduce the cost of pending health care plans. Nonpartisan budget officials have said Obama's proposals could increase the federal deficit by about $1 trillion over the next decade.
In one measure of the intense opposition Obama and his allies faced this summer, opponents of the Democratic effort outspent supporters on television commercials in August for the first time this year, according to a company that monitors political advertising.
Foes of the Democratic drive spent $12.1 million last month, compared with $9.1 million for backers of the effort, according to Evan Tracey, president of the Campaign Media Analysis Group in Arlington, Va. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and several conservative groups were the biggest advertisers against the health care overhaul, while the drug industry, labor and AARP spent the most on the effort's behalf.
___
Associated Press writers Alan Fram and Ben Feller in Washington, Mike Glover in Iowa, and Mead Gruver in Wyoming contributed to this report.
Sep 5, 2009 at 6:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
hey darwin....schools back in session....maybe you should go and learn a few things.
Sep 4, 2009 at 9:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
andre I think it is time to just ignore the dolt. We have all tried to debate reasonably with the person claiming to have an advanced degree. It has got to the point where he repeats the same lies over-and-over with no proof.
Sep 4, 2009 at 7:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
andre, you think what I write is stupid because you don't read your own writing.
Fact: You belong to a union that equalizes everyone - socialism. You do so voluntarily.
Fact: You hate the welfare state even though we are to "...promote the general welfare..." It isn't an interpretation, it is a fact.
Fact: You have yet to quote any part of the Constitution or provide any semblance of reasoning.
Fact: Basket weaving is the subject you mention the most, clearly it is the only subject you know.
Fact: The Constitution allows for Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare.
Fact: The liberty loving founding fathers had a welfare state built on slave labor.
Fact: You have never disputed these facts.
I understand that you have a problem with facts and details which is why you don't understand what I am writing. I guess I could restate everything as a simplistic one line cliche, but that would be dumbing it down for you.
If you and the Conservatives really hated socialism so much, why not sue the government to get rid of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare as unConstitutional? Because you would L-O-S-E.
Sep 4, 2009 at 3:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
That's good coming from a socialist union member andre. Got any more hypocritical things to say. I have and will pay far more in taxes than you ever will because I have an education and a good job.
Sep 4, 2009 at 2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Nice try RAF. Splitting hairs is a technique children use to avoid the truth. It doesn't surprise me that you would try to avoid the truth like the hypocrite you are Mr I Have Government Health Care Already But No One Else Should. Conservatives remind me of the seagulls in 'Nemo: mine, mine, mine, mine.
Sep 4, 2009 at 2:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
The "government" didn't create the internet; people did with taxpayer money.
Sep 4, 2009 at 1:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
I always find it tiresome to here the right wing ramble on about how the government can't do anything on the internet which the government created. I have an idea, instead of being an ignorant hypocrite, you should stay off the government roads, not use the government run postal service which serves everyone and be completely against the government run military. This is OUR country -- not yours alone.
Sep 4, 2009 at 1:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Here, read a decent bill to pass. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/...
If your going to support anything, support HR676!
Sep 4, 2009 at 1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
I support HR 676 but at the moment it is not on the news or the media as a reform option for health care. I have only heard about proposed legislation and no I have not read the entire bill but I sure can read my hospital bill. I can tell you it would be nice to live in a country where we do not recieve medical bills, because they are all taken care of. I want to live in a country where nobody gets denied health care, where nobody files bankruptcy due to getting sick, losing their insurance and jobs. Paulette Garrin said it best. If the poll was re worded then yes I would vote for HR 676 definitely. IF PEOPLE KNEW NATIONAL HEALTH CARE WAS AN OPTION THEY WOULD VOTE FOR IT. Take the power back! Tell Ryan to support HR 676 and thank Tammy Baldwin for sponsoring the legislation. Stop bickering at each other about politics, and take action. Do Something! Obama said we'd get change, and now it's time to collect.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/what-c......
Sep 4, 2009 at 10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
" the government will be helping people pay for health insurance"
-
No, other tax payers will be, in addition to paying their own medical insurance.
Sep 4, 2009 at 9:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opini...
Sep 4, 2009 at 7:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Single payer/public option are unacceptable ways to resolve this problem. The government is not competent enough in running something like that in order to make it viable. You think a doubling of health costs will be traumatic? I think government run health care could easily surpass that. No accountability and an endless flow of taxpayer dollars--That $1 trillion will become 2 in no time at all. Medicare is broke--more and more doctors are refusing to accept Medicare recipients--1/3 of Medicare payouts are estimated to be fraudulent--and Medicare reform that was estimated to cost $400 billion ended up costing us taxpayers close to double that......Look at the track record people--this reform is a disaster in the making......
Sep 4, 2009 at 6:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
pharm; 22,000 die every year out of 305,000,000+ - not to sound cold but thats a pretty low percentage. 6,700+ die every year while waiting for an organ transplant. Whats next manditory donating organs for harvest so we can get all these numbers to zero.
I do agree with you on your point that we need to work together. There has to be a common ground way to get to the goal - we just fundamentaly disagree on how to pay for it & unfortunately, the "left" doesnt want to open up to the "rights" ideas.
Sep 3, 2009 at 10:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Medicare costs are not surprising because you are covering the most expensive group of all, the aged. Under HR3200, or whatever plan is finalized, the government will be helping people pay for health insurance, not health care. Is it perfect? No, what is, nothing I know of? Can we afford to do nothing? No, costs will double in less than ten years. There are 534 Congressmen/women, and if they would work together instead of playing politics, maybe something closer to perfect would come out of it. There are people on both sides willing to put their agenda above the good of the country. Maybe we should go with term limits, but then you still have the money problem. I think we need public financing of elections to remove any suspected taint from the money trail. Pete, the bill does not limit what you can get for coverage, only puts a minimum requirement in place.
Sep 3, 2009 at 10:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hypocrites are people who think a government option will save money. ~40% of all health care money spent in our nation today is spent on ~33% of the people…Medicare and Medicaid. Both of these programs pay the lowest fees to all health care providers and they still spend the most money per person. How will covering more people make this more efficient?
Sep 3, 2009 at 10:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
he already is showing signs of aging. :(
Sep 3, 2009 at 10:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
"relentless Republican-led attacks."
no bias here!
Sep 3, 2009 at 9:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
If you`re talking about the health care bill, no tax dollars will be used to pay for abortions, only money from premiums. The government uses tax dollars to pay for a lot of things people don`t agree with, under threat of imprisonment.
Sep 3, 2009 at 9:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Just because abortion is legal doesn't mean the government should force me to pay (under threat of imprisonment) for someone else's. Please.
Sep 3, 2009 at 9:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
It does Not say the plug will be pulled no matter what the family says. It SPECIFICALLY says ONLY legal residents will be covered. Insurance payments are not immediate now, providers wait to see if they will be paid. The only supplements you will need are if you want vision, dental, elective plastic surgery, etc. Go to youtube, they have at least 30 videos of people denied care. The Institute of Medicine estimates 22,000 people die each year because they lack health care. Abortion is legal, if you don`t like it, get out the vote. Hypocrites are people with health care that don`t want others to have it because they think it is a LUXURY! I`m sure the millions on Medicare don`t feel it`s a luxury, but a necessity.
Sep 3, 2009 at 8:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
More Hooey! Illegal aliens are NOT covered, and until changed, abortion is legal
Sep 3, 2009 at 7:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Nataline Sarkisayan, I`m sure she was not the only one. If you don`t have insurance/money/charity who pays? No pay, no surgery. The only care you get is emergency when your illness has progressed that far.
Sep 3, 2009 at 7:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
If you don`t get a needed transplant that could save your life because you have no insurance/money, that is why you die. You wouldn`t if the surgery was performed. dub, in any of those things you copied, where does it say you will not get what you NEED? How is the government paying for counseling interfering in your marriage? Early discharges, because of insurance company pressure, is a definite problem that I have encountered personally. Everybody, even Republicans(I hope!) are against waste, fraud, and abuse in the system.
Sep 3, 2009 at 6:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
It`s not lack of organs, it`s lack of insurance/money that causes these people to die. Being denied health insurance, consequently health care, causes people to wait for an emergency to seek help, driving up costs. A single-payer system would be the cheapest way to go, but the political reality is it will not pass. Can you quote any section in the bills being proposed that says the elderly, or any other group, would not get the medicine they need?
Sep 3, 2009 at 5:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
People are denied health care everyday. If you need a heart/lung/kidney/etc. transplant, have no insurance, no money, no charity step in, you die! Hospitals only have to give emergency care, once you are stable, you are out the door! AARP says tort reform, while a good idea, would only directly save one half of one percent of this country`s health care bill. The states that have done it saw a decrease in Doctors Malpractice premiums, but no decrease in patients health care premiums. I agree about being able to purchase across state lines, but unless you can regulate premiums in some way, the insurers will keep merging until they have a monopoly again. A payment plan for cancer treatments of $2-6 hundred thousand would stretch on forever. Bring on the non-existant "death panels"!
Sep 3, 2009 at 5:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Government interference is not the answer. Government got us into this current mess by mandating HMO coverage with the 1973 HMO Act ! Government created the monopoly control and $10M insurance company CEO salaries ! People regaining responsibility for being aware of the costs is the answer.
Sep 3, 2009 at 12:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.