Spirit I Can Believe In
Others more knowledgeable than I about the mechanics of health care reform, like TNR's Jonathan Cohn, have already begun commenting on the details that Obama elevated in his Wednesday night speech. I want to say only a small thing about a very large thing: his spirit.
He sounded like a winner. Like all great preachers, he started methodically and built to crescendos. The Republican responder, Charles Boustany of Louisiana, sounded like a whiner, crying, Deficit, deficit, and government-run, government-run, and built toward nothing. Obama charged the Republicans with specific lies. He made the obligatory gestures toward bipartisanship, including the unexpected shout-out to John McCain, who had campaigned in favor of mandatory catastrophic insurance--and I don't want to be cynical about those gestures, even though I think he's naive about the other party's intentions--but that's not where his stresses fell. He was reminding the majority who voted for him why they did that. He was reminding independents that the reason why no progress has been made toward universality, mandates, and affordabiity is Republicans--as with 1935's Social Security and 1965's Medicare laws. He was reminding them, as well as the few rational Republicans left, that the insurance companies are not the glories of American value.
He did not sound like a patsy. He offered specific programs but the peroration was clear: he stood for values and national character. If he went too easy on the insurance companies for my taste--his audience could have used the information that Americans pay insurance companies twice as much as they pay doctors--he took a proper jab at Republicans (they know who they are) who make up the party of fear. You can say that he's still not willing to talk to Americans straight about the need to limit high-tech medicine for the very old and very frail. Presidents won't do that.
But he bet on the strength of the American character. It was his finest public moment since the Inaugural. I'm betting national decency wins.

















Thanks, once again, Todd. You've been analyzing societal issues for years and I've always paid attention.
September 9, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent commentary. Thank you for writing this.
September 9, 2009 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto.
September 10, 2009 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Rep. Wilson (R-SC) screaming liar - If I recall correctly, the great Rep. Kucinich was in fact censured for, you guessed it, calling ex-President Bush a liar.
September 9, 2009 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think we need to deny high tech medical care to anyone who needs it, including elderly patients. That's the problem with this whole debate: it's centered on costs when it should be about care for everyone in their times of need. Obama's spirit is in the right place. But the president who signed TARP without fretting about the deficit, who signed his stimulus without fretting about the deficit, who bailed out GM and Chrysler without fretting about the deficit, is giving us a "budget neutral" health care plan that falls short of what the American people deserve.
September 9, 2009 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The president who signed TARP" left office in January.
September 9, 2009 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what's your point? How hard is it to drop your current carrier if they continue raping you with their inflated premiums?
September 10, 2009 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry cool- that was not meant for you. It was meant for ralphbon below.
September 10, 2009 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
If only that were true.
September 10, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh right, Destor. Just blow it out your ass.
September 11, 2009 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cool it. Nobody here needs to "blow it out" their posterior.
September 11, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
As did the Vice President who said in 2003 "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. This is our due."
September 10, 2009 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to know why health insurance corporations are exempt from anti-trust laws - by the way. (I'm getting beyond awfully tired of those who tout capitalism while practicing mercantilism.) And I'm beyond being exasperated with legislators and presidents who avoid tackling the root of the problem - costs of health insurance are what they are, exorbitant, because we literally cannot take our business elsewhere.
September 10, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it was the best speech I've seen him deliver since the convention.
Even if it did nothing other than buck up the base, it would be worthwhile.
September 9, 2009 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sen. Sherrod Brown said it was the best speech he's ever seen addressed to a Joint Session of Congress.
I think he still counts as one of the good guys, right?
September 9, 2009 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not after that comment. The purity police banned him on the spot.
September 10, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Gitlin, I want to tell this to my friends: "Americans pay insurance companies twice as much as they pay doctors." Could you point me to a source for that? It's a powerful piece of data.
September 10, 2009 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree very much with John McCrory, I would like to know the source for that. I had to read that one twice, that says it all.
September 10, 2009 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
It sounds like bullshit to me. We pay insurers and the insurers pay the doctors, the hospitals, pharmaceutical suppliers, durable medical equipment suppliers, etc...
Also, we pay doctors less often with out of pocket funds than with through insurers.
So what's the point.
September 10, 2009 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Try this fact on for size, as regards all the paying the insurers allegedly do:
When a doctor is sued for malpractice, he must hire two lawyers --
One to defend against the malpractice action;
and
a second to sue the insurance company to compell it to pay the first lawyer.
Moreover: doctors are the last ones to listen to on "tort reform". And so are the Republicans.
September 10, 2009 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
What on earth are you talking about?
Malpractice insurers are different from those who offer health insurance.
September 10, 2009 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bullshit. Every insurer makes every effort to cop a plea in place of pnying up.
September 10, 2009 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think he means that the amounts we pay to insurance companies to handle the paperwork and practice medicine against us exceed the amounts we pay doctors to practice medicine for us.
But yes I would like to see his source for that. If true, it's @**%$#@!& dynamite.
September 10, 2009 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
John,
According to government figures at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/dsm-07.pdf, Table 1, in 2007 the total dollar value of health expenditures kept by insurance companies in the form of administrative expenditures plus profits was $94.6 billion. The total kept by physicians and clinical services combined was $49.6 billion.
September 10, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah Todd. I like your point, too. How's 'bout a little citation?
September 11, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Todd.
September 11, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"National decency"? WTF is that?
I think you're a little off in this blog. Maybe you wrote it too hastily.
The speech was superb for two audiences: the American people who tuned in, and the Dems.
It was surprisingly partisan, however, in its harshness toward Congressional Republicans. While they certainly deserve it after the orchestrated antics of August and the disgraceful, boorish behavior tonight, it was a declaration of war. Obama raised the stakes by publicly humiliating the Republicans (which I certainly have no problem with), but I expect to see "national decency" get chucked by the wayside from here on out.
September 10, 2009 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans needed no help in humiliating themselves.
September 10, 2009 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
"National decency"? WTF is that?
Doesn't that indicate that "national decency" has already been "chucked"?
Did President Obama include, without naming him, McSame as one of the "Death Panel" liars? Yes. But it wasn't a lie. And it really doesn't matter what non-Republicans do: Republicans are responsible for their own choices, which should already be obvious: it was they who "chucked" "national decency" at latest with their war on the Clinton presidency.
September 10, 2009 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't understand what I meant. "National decency" is not an American ideal. Never has been. Ronald Reagan (or Peggy Noonan, actually) successfully promoted the myth of it, while allowing the Moral Majority to take center stage.
"National decency" is simply a fantasy that Todd Gitlin wishes this country had. But Gitlin of all people should know it has never existed. Where was "national decency" during the McCarthy hearings? Where was "national decency" during the civil rights movement? Where was "national decency" during desegregation? Where was "national decency" during the lead up to the Iraq War? Most of our constitutional amendments are designed to force Americans to be decent. We don't come by it naturally. Individual citizens may be inclined to decency, but as a nation we are not so inclined.
We weren't founded with any decorum, therefore it's not part of our national identity.
America may have some admirable traits as a nation, but "national decency" isn't one of them! It cannot therefore be restored if it never existed. It's a sentimental myth.
September 10, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
If there was no national decency then we wouldn't be talking about these things as past wrongs that have since been addressed (if imperfectly) by the nation.
Plenty of Americans were vocally opposed to this war. They just weren't listened to by a self-delusional White House.
"National decency," like personal decency, doesn't always win the day. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
September 11, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you. Americans need to own up on this blatant fact.
September 11, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rule of law is essentially about enforcing societal norms, including that of the consensus "decency".
Yeah: I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it.
September 14, 2009 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
it was a declaration of war
From your mouth to *God's ear...
*(as my Bubby would say--I am on record as dispising Yahweh, and all his agents, spokesmodels, and prophets...))
September 10, 2009 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everything from the Kennedy letter to the end was epic. Momentarily proud to be an American.
September 10, 2009 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was a superb presentation of Ted Kennedy's vision, and a wonderful tribute.
And he buttonholed Hatch and McSame with it.
September 10, 2009 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let start with this. I watch Glenn Beck and have for a while. I was happy to see Van Jones get out from under the rock he was hidding under.
So I got home from the beach and my wife tell me to come on in and watch the Prez. speak on Government Care. After about 10 minutes I was starting to like what he was saying, I was not getting any understandable facts but I liked what he was saying.
I see why you dont care about the message.
September 10, 2009 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did not get anything understandable from your comment.
September 10, 2009 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
As concerns Van Jones:
The First Amendment exists to protect unpopular speech -- popular speech needing no protection.
And it secures not only freedom of conscience and speech, but also the freedom to speak those -- without being attacked and penalized for it.
How does it feel to praise an anti-American mugging of a person only alleged to be anti-American by a proven liar?
So you're for a hateful liar such as Glenn Beck "winning" against the First Amendment which protects his right to lie, and to ignore the fact that every right is inextricably entwined with responsibility in the exercise of the right.
Or do you view lying as responsible?
As for the "message": you received part of that: you liked what the President was saying. I can't help you, though, with your inability to understand facts that the far-right lunatic fringe -- as is Glenn Beck -- has been lying about and against.
I was moved by much of the speech, including the President actually using the word "lie" to characterize that which is in fact lie.
September 10, 2009 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Was no one else outraged when Obama triangleated between single payers on the "left" and those who want to abolish Medicare on the right?
September 10, 2009 3:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't. Because for several months, the public option component has been identified as the left-wing plan. By defining the left as single payer, Obama was then able to position the public option as a centrist plan.
Anyway, don't you think single payer is on the left? Personally, I would like single payer. But that's because I am a left-winger.
September 10, 2009 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
The road may not be straight but we'll get there. If for no other reason than necessity, we'll get there. Some people are a tad slow when it comes to recognizing and acknowledging the obvious.
September 10, 2009 4:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I rec this comment. Excellent!
September 10, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I must disagree, Mr. Gitlin. In my view, this was the weakest, most garbled, most abjectly capitulatory speech I've heard from Obama so far. He equated advocacy for single payer (Medicare for All) health financing, supported in multiple polls by 60% of Americans overall, including 60% of physicians (including two former editors of the New England Journal of Medicine), with nutcase right-wing positions held by Rush Limbaugh. And I'm expected to applaud his "spirit"?
This speech may be the first time many doe-eyed supporters of moveon.org, Democracy for America, and the like actually heard how weak the public option in current bills actually is.
In fact, some of us who've been raising hell about the fact that the public option in the House tri-committee and Senate HELP bills will be available to just a tiny fraction of Americans were dumbfounded by Obama's assertion that it would be even weaker. He said the public plan would be available only to people without insurance.
How does that square with the cheery descriptions by Robert Reich and Howard Dean of a public option where "you can keep what you have if you like it, or choose the public option"? Under Obama's description, you can choose the public plan only if you don't "have." Worse, Obama portrayed this weakness as a SELLING POINT.
This speech was emblematic of the disaster Obama and his advisers, abetted by Congress and liberal pundits enamored of his "spirit" but unencumbered by attention to substance, have allowed this effort to become.
I am very reluctantly coming to the conclusion that it's time to torpedo this entire effort and start again immediately (because the urgency is real) with a citizen-powered movement that leads with the recognition of equitable access to health services as a human right.
September 10, 2009 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good grief, man. What chance do you think THAT will have of passing?! Zilch minus shit over zero. Take what you can get now and build on it. That's the way it's always been done.
September 10, 2009 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Glad you weren't around to offer advice to the civil rights movement.
September 10, 2009 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, MLK and a few others took care of that. Accomplishing Civil Rights as defined by the movement took quite a while.
This speech was loaded with substance to my ears, though that may have been too subtle for some. I agree with Tintin. Patience! And then build.
September 10, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
"He equated advocacy for single payer (Medicare for All) health financing, supported in multiple polls by 60% of Americans overall..."
You know, people keep trotting this out as if it means something. If so many people are in favor of single payer, why haven't they voted for politician who support it?
September 10, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You know, people keep trotting this out as if it means something. If so many people are in favor of single payer, why haven't they voted for politician [sic] who support it?"
It means a lot more than the statistic that Obamacare boosters trot out, supposedly showing 72% support for a public option, when other research demonstrates that most people polled on the public option don't have a blessed clue what they're being asked about.
Plenty of national politicians support single payer. Obama voiced unequivocal support for it a few years back and said that what we needed to accomplish it was Democratic control of both Houses and the Presidency. If you have to ask how our corrupt system warped his sabsequent position, you haven't been paying attention.
September 10, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feh. "subsequent."
September 10, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You can say that he's still not willing to talk to Americans straight about the need to limit high-tech medicine for the very old and very frail. "
That's exactly there Death Panels come from, and deservedly so.
---
As for the rest, I found Gitlin's post surprisingly cynical, especially because he focused on the speech in the same way a theater critic discusses a sold-out Broadway performance by an international celebrity.
-----
"He made the obligatory gestures toward bipartisanship" - suggests that everyone knows he didn't mean a word of it. What's obligatory and why?
September 10, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
"He made the obligatory gestures toward bipartisanship" - suggests that everyone knows he didn't mean a word of it.
Nope. It does not.
What's obligatory and why?
Decency and intelligence? Oh, never mind...
September 10, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The issue isn't "death panels," you dishonest sack of shit. It's allowing doctors to advise patients and their families about the fact that keeping Grandma on a respirator for weeks or months is not only hugely expensive, but also cruel to Grandma, and not something she is likely to endorse. Having just lost my 89-year-old father, I have some perspective on this question.
On the other hand, if you want to keep Vegetable Grandma alive for your own selfish purposes, the goverment won't stop you. You probably communicate better with somone in a vegetative state than fully sentient humans anyway.
September 10, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure if your senses also departed at around the same time.
However, it would help if you tried and put yourself in the mind of a senior, who's 100% dependent on Medicare today, is listening to the Democrats, hears this:
"the need to limit high-tech medicine for the very old and very frail"
and thinks forward, 5 or 7 years when s/he becomes very old and very frail.
September 10, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"it would help if you tried and put yourself in the mind of a senior..."
as I said, I just did. My dad wanted nothing less than to live through artifical support. Fortunately for us, he nade that decision clear before he got terminal.
"listening to the Democrats..."
Now Todd is speaking for the Democratic Party? My guess is he would say he is not. The old rightwing trick of conflating rather marginal (sorry, Todd) commenters with the people actual formulating the policy.
You simply don't argue honestly, dude. That's why I almost never engage your comments. Unpacking the distortions to get to something real takes up too much time.
September 10, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
(a) life support is not high tech medicine
(b) Gitlin is a marginal commenter? This author of 12 books and "a prominent critic - wiki" who simply phrased what Obama himself said before with more clarity and honesty.
If Gitlin doesn't speak for Democrats, what makes you think that you do?
September 10, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
(a) Possibly I spoke imprecisely, but it's a well-known fact that something like 60% of all medical spending is spent in the last six months of life. A huge portion of this is spent in the absence of directives from the patient to forgo extremely costly life-saving measures.
(b) where did I ever claim to speak for the Democrats? For that matter, where has Todd? He is not an elected or appointed Democratic official, and I would not want to speak on behalf of the Democrats, or have them speak on my behalf. They are a national political party that only tangentially and (very) imperfect reflects my public policy priorities.
Another dishonest attempt to parse away the points at issue here. I would expect nothing less.
September 10, 2009 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks you for sharing. This information is very useful.
Best regards, Katya, CEO of facebook, iscsi initiator vista
March 25, 2011 5:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of windows high availability
April 27, 2011 5:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
auto transport, car shipping, car transport, car transportation, vehicle shipping, auto transport.
May 1, 2011 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
auto transport, car shipping, car transport, car transportation, vehicle shipping, auto transport.
May 1, 2011 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink