IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

So I guess you don't give a fig that about 55,000 people per year are dying due to lack of coverage, that soon 25 % of our economy will be in the medical area, that people will not start businesses because they would have to give their employer's plan, etc.

Advocate, You're missing all the important issues like congress and Obama. Most Americans want health care reform - including me, but not one which adds cost, doesn't increase efficiency, and doesn't cover the over 31 million plus who has no insurance or inadequate insurance.

In addition to all the wrong issues that congress and Obama addressed in their latest attempts at health care reform, they made special deals for groups and states. That's not acceptable; it must be "universal" in cost and benefits.

It will be very interesting to observe what President Obama and the other leaders of the Democrat party choose to do (or not do) with respect to the health care legislation that has so far been so disastrous for them. Zealous "progressives" are urging the President to press hard now for passage of some form of the legislation - perhaps through a House vote on the Senate Bill and subsequent "adjustment" through the reconciliation process. They assert that failing to do so will be a disaster for the party.

So far the President's moves on this matter have been a bit ambiguous. His first comments expressed the hope that the parties could unite on "the parts they agree on". More recently more aggressive comments have come from his advisors. Will we see anything explicit on this issue in tonight's SOU address???

My view is that the disaster has already occurred and it is too late for the Dems to pass anything, by any means. I suspect the ranks of the frightened "Blue Dogs" in the House have grown substantially. Between them and indignant far left progressives, there may not be enough votes in the House for the Senate bill under any circumstances. The historical precedents suggest that doubling down on an already failed policy is a prescription for further political setbacks, not a reversal.

The President is starting to appear weak, vacillating and confused. There is more to governing than just his admittedly remarkable ability to give uplifting but vague and hard-to-remember speeches. We may be seeing the consequences of electing to a very challenging office, an attractive, intelligent and well-spoken individual who is also singularly short of meaningful experience or substance - "all hat: no cattle" in the Texas phrase.

Still, the speech tonight will be interesting.

Unless you're posting from the future, I suggest you watch the speech with the rest of us - tomorrow night.

Cycloptichorn

Tomorrow night ?? damn !

Well I'll have to miss it. I have an engagement.

Well, georgeob, even his speech won't change my mind about him; he's lied too often on too many subjects/issues to win me over.

I see this president as a lame duck for the next three years. Americans may like him as a person, but not as our president.

Bribes. Their votes can still be bought.

I doubt it. First, the doubters in Congress are far more afraid now of the consequences for them of a favorable vote, so the price will be higher. Second, the issue has already been sensitized with the Louisiana and Nebraska bribes & the union deal. They don't have the balls to try it again.

You could watch it together; think about how much fun it could be.

You could throw popcorn at the TV

Cycloptichorn

I wonder if any of that will be mentioned tonight. Probably not. If it was, he'd have to explain how he had absolutely nothing to do with any of that ("Let me be clear...etc.etc.etc.").



Probably not without applying for admission to the Witness Protection Program LOL. (And Ben Nelson - D-MutualofOmaha - is probably wishing he'd done just that)!

BTW, tonite's speech will emphasize the middle class, and he'll talk about jobs, but the reality is "he can't be trusted." The time for sweet-talk is over and done with; his only option from now till January 20, 2012, is to move to the right of center. Will he?

Yes, I suppose he could become another Clinton republican.

He already did...........by freezing 0.04% of the budget!

Irishk wrote:

ROFL

There is a rather remarkable superficiality about this administration. Perhaps they think we are very stupid and don't see through things like this "budget freeze" - on the heels of their increases which exceed it by orders of magnitude.

Lots of mixed signals coming out of the White House -- a populist attack on "greedy bankers" (following earlier ones on "the rich"); rather meaningless gestures toward fiscal responsibility; conciliatory words (from the White House) on health care reform, annompanyied by threats of bold, aggressive action from other Dem. leaders; Lots of emphasis on actions to create new jobs; etc.

What is missing is any coherent underlying economic policy or unifying principles. It is a little bit like the Peter Sellers film, "Being there".

I'll miss the SOU address tonight, but there will undoubtedly be endless repititions of it on the TV (something I usually try to avoid).

well yes Gerogeob, "being there" is excellent analysis and the really amazing thing about the book/film is that it applies exactly as well to liberals as well as conservatives. If you wanted to single out a strickly liberal critique I would have mentioned "clockwork orange"

So, we should expect another campaign speech?

It's going to have all the seasoning and spice to make it palatable, but the entree will be fake meat and potatoes. I don't think it'll pass the smell test.

He's going to tell us 'why we're angry'. Because we're shallow and dumb as rocks and can't figure that out for ourselves. Or something.

I think that's partially accurate. Many Republicans are angry for no other reason than the fact that their political party is in the shitter, and they are casting about for any topic they can find to express this anger.

Cycloptichorn