Reason Writers Around Town: Shikha Dalmia on the Talker-in-Chief's Health Care Speechathon

September 11, 2009

At Forbes, Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia points out that despite all of his talk of conducting a civil dialouge, listening to each other, staying open to new ideas, and yada, yada, yada, President Barack Obama's speech on Wednesday was the policy equivalent of the middle finger to the majority of Americans, a group who opposes a government takeover of health care. He broke his old promises, he spread new lies, and, notes Dalmia:

If there was anything bipartisan about the speech it was that he embraced every bad big-government idea from both sides. If he prevails, the American public won't get "choice and competition" as he proclaimed, but a one-size-fits-all government-prescribed health care plan that it dare not refuse and dare not challenge.

Whole thing here.

Comments

|9.11.09 @ 10:40AM|#

Repost in a more appropriate thread:

A friend of mine had a modest proposal yesterday.

What if every Republican in the House co-sponsored a bill that was identical to Obama's health plan, with one caveat: The bill triggers one year after passing and only if Medicare "waste and fraud" is reduced to the tune of $200B. Don't meet the goal? The bill becomes fishwrapping.

Joe M|9.11.09 @ 10:43AM|#

Scathing! I love it.

|9.11.09 @ 11:06AM|#

If there was anything bipartisan about the speech it was that he embraced every bad big-government idea from both sides.

Isn't that pretty much the definition of bipartisanship these days?

Reminds of the story about the British Navy wanting more battleships. The wanted eight, Parliament only wanted to fund five, so they compromised at eleven.*

Numbers not warranted as exact. Point remains.

JB|9.11.09 @ 11:07AM|#

'No questioning the great and powerful Obami!'

Fuck Obama and his zombies.

ProSinglePayer|9.11.09 @ 11:33AM|#

So when Bush and the Republicans draft a constitution for Iraq, Health Care was a right that all Iraqis will have, which is enforced with a single payer system. When Democrats try to do the same thing in the US, it is socialism which will totally harm us all.

jimmy|9.11.09 @ 11:41AM|#

Bush needed to make it up to them.

|9.11.09 @ 11:41AM|#

ProSinglePayer,

You're arguing with the voices in your head. You really kicked the crap outta that strawman though!

smartass sob|9.11.09 @ 11:41AM|#

Great article by Ms. Dalmia.

ProSinglePayer|9.11.09 @ 11:44AM|#

I should have guessed that you tardertarians wouldn't address my argument since you have such a weak standing on any issue other than legalized dope

jimmy|9.11.09 @ 11:47AM|#

ProSinglePayer

You sir, are an asshole. How dare you come here and chastise us in our own house. Go home, play with your Bush some more and leave us alone.

ProSinglePayer|9.11.09 @ 11:49AM|#

ad-hominems. typical. Will anyone address my argument? Why is single payer good enough for the iraqis, but not for the american people?

|9.11.09 @ 11:51AM|#

Find me the link where any Reason writer ever supported or approved of the idea that health care in Iraq is "a right that all Iraqis will have, [and should be] enforced with a single payer system."

I'll wait.

ProSinglePayer|9.11.09 @ 11:52AM|#

no wait, I'll answer for you. It's your racist republican buddies that go against anything our president does to try and help the poor and huddled masses in this country

jimmy|9.11.09 @ 11:54AM|#

ProSinglePlayer

That wasn't your argument. Your original argument was the comparison of what happened in Iraq vs what is happening now and how it is now called socialism when it is happening in this country and the implication that it wasn't called socialism then by us. It was called socialism when it happened in Iraq too. There, are you happy now or do you want to make up more BS points for us to argue with you on? Thanks, bye bye!

ProSinglePayer|9.11.09 @ 11:58AM|#

well it's working for iraq, why can't we have it here in one of the richest countries in the world? all these millionaires twirling their mustaches are too greedy to help their fellow man

|9.11.09 @ 11:58AM|#

Single Payer

You are a moron. Bush didn't draft the Iraqi constitution, the Iraqi's did. They had an election to elect an assembly that then drafted a Constitution. If they decided to have a single payer system, that is their business. But, it was them, not Bush who decided that.

Now run back to KOS land before you embarass yourself further.

|9.11.09 @ 11:59AM|#

[checks pockets]

Yep. All outta' troll food.

ProSinglePayer|9.11.09 @ 12:03PM|#

http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/6700

what about the 950 million we sent to sponsor their single payer health care?

ProSinglePayer|9.11.09 @ 12:04PM|#

with all the bailouts for wall stree fat cats, why can't we spend some money to take care of the hard-working heartland of america?

Jordan|9.11.09 @ 12:24PM|#

with all the bailouts for wall stree fat cats, why can't we spend some money to take care of the hard-working heartland of america?

Actually, anybody who wants to can do that. What you really meant to say is why can't I force other people to give me their money. And nobody here supported any bailouts.

Sam Grove|9.11.09 @ 12:41PM|#

what about the 950 million we sent to sponsor their single payer health care?

Shouldn't have happened.

Are you suggesting that the gov't socializing 950 millions of our $s for Iraq is a reason to socialize even more of our &s for here?

As I oppose the former, is OK if I oppose the latter?

|9.11.09 @ 3:20PM|#

ProSinglePayer- Move to Iraqi and get you some single payer healthcare. But when you lose all your real rights and no one cares remember how bad your healthcare was to make you move there and then relax knowing your single payer.

Your Obummer spoke about us being the richest country this and the only country that... Please explain to me how being nearly 15 TRILLION in the shitter would make anyone be considered wealthy? Obummer even said it himself, we spend more on this and that and the other thing than all these other countries. Yet we have crap in many instances of where all this money is being spent and we spend a lot of money to give protection military style so that they can then spend their dollars on healthcare SINCE they don't have to worry about fielding much of a military when we are covering that as well.

Let me think, the number of people that voted for Obama exceeds the number they claim need insurance. So why not send each person that voted for Obama the premium for the uninsured person of their choice and it can come with a picture of the US citizen your sponsoring and a letter from them.

Then you can leave those of us that don't believe in paying for everything for everyone by gun point of a government that was not charged with providing anything of the sort to begin with the hell alone.

Why is it one sides idea makes it easy you use you pay. The other sides are all about everyone paying for THEIR IDEAS. If you can't fund your ideas with your own and others like yourself on what you make, why the hell should those of us who don't want to fund it be forced to?

Socialist pig.

weight|11.20.09 @ 10:31PM|#

While I'm a Ron Paul supporter, I also do my best not to look at things with rose-colored glasses. That's how I can read this article and applaud its honesty, even if I don't like the words from my biased perspective. Oh who am I kidding? I actually have my own idea why he lost like he did.

Aside from the reasons listed (since they're good reasons), one reason I didn't see what something that happened at the ABC debates. While I read comments from co-supporters deploring the verbal attack on Paul during the war discussion, they failed to realize that Paul dug himself in a bit in his retorts to the attack. He didn't defend his stance well and I think that was a key factor in the end result.

coach|11.20.09 @ 10:32PM|#

While I'm a Ron Paul supporter, I also do my best not to look at things with rose-colored glasses. That's how I can read this article and applaud its honesty, even if I don't like the words from my biased perspective. Oh who am I kidding? I actually have my own idea why he lost like he did.

Aside from the reasons listed (since they're good reasons), one reason I didn't see what something that happened at the ABC debates. While I read comments from co-supporters deploring the verbal attack on Paul during the war discussion, they failed to realize that Paul dug himself in a bit in his retorts to the attack. He didn't defend his stance well and I think that was a key factor in the end result.