President Obama's health care speech

I read the transcript last night and then watched it this morning online.


As I watched I jotted down stuff as it came to mind during the speech. I will elaborate on what I wrote.

I was irritated by the long applause at the beginning, before he had even started speaking. Let's get to what we came to hear please! I counted 20+ standing ovations, most started by Pelosi, one by Biden, and another by someone else. I wish people would contain themselves and actually listen to what is being said instead of reacting to the tone of voice being used. It did seem to me that even the Pres. was getting tired of it by the end.

Obama claimed that the 'stimulus' had brought our nation 'back from the brink' of economic collapse. I really don't think that is the case, since much of that money hasn't been spent and what has hasn't been accounted for very well.

I contend that America is not wealthy. We have the appearance of being so, but being on the verge of bankruptcy is not my idea of being wealthy. I think every legislator in Washington needs to read Dave Ramsey's book, "The Total Money Makeover" and apply it to our nation's finances. We are $11 trillion + in debt, that is not wealthy!! We are enslaved to foreign lenders!!!

I do agree with the President that insurance companies are part of the problem. They will not cover those who need it most because it hurts the bottom line, but then they are businesses and they are in it to make money not for philanthropy.

Obama spoke about the rising costs of health care. I contend that much of that cost is because of insurance companies and also because of the regulation, licensure, and taxes and all associated costs.

Obama said that an average of $1000 of insurance premiums for those who have it, goes toward paying for those who don't have insurance. That will not change because of this plan. Those who have will still be paying for those who don't through the public option and subsidies. So people won't be saving, their money will just be spent a little differently.

Why would a transition to single-payer disrupt coverage? I don't think it would. And if that is what he would really like to have why not go for it?

I agree with the President's disapprobation of scare tactics and the fact that our polarization into ideological camps are wrong and do not get anything accomplished.

It is not strictly true that there will be no change in coverage. There is a commission in the bill that will decide what constitutes 'basic coverage' and to determine what coverage a company must provide.

I agree that we need to make it so that those with pre-existing conditions can get affordable coverage.

Not so sure about the routine procedure coverage. I see this as a way for practitioners to milk the system.

I like the idea of the exchange, but I worry about corruption and how practical it will really be.

I don't really like being required to have coverage. I really don't think auto insurance should be required either.

I wish that employers would not be required to carry it for employees. I think this may over tax some smaller businesses that don't qualify for the exemptions.

There are a few things that the right is insistent about that I've not been able to verify, namely 'death panels', coverage for illegals, funding for abortions, and no freedom of conscience. Those on the right are adamant that these things are true and yet I've found no citations to show me exactly where in the bill these things are. If there is a loophole for illegals, we need to get it closed up. Surely if these concerns are brought up and addressed there would be less opposition from the right.

Obama said that the public option would not cost taxpayers money, I wonder if he really believes that? How can it possibly not cost the taxpayers money? Where will the funds come from? Even if it is from 'savings' in other areas, it is still taxpayer money. All the money the government has is from the taxpayers!

I dislike his insistence that this MUST be done NOW and in the way that he wants. The president can suggest things to Congress but he cannot mandate. Article 2 section 3 of the US Constitution says, "He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; ..."

I mentioned above about my incredulity that this will not cost the taxpayer money, it most certainly will. Government programs ALWAYS cost more, much more, than projected.

Some of the deficits that he deplores were because of his votes in Congress. He did vote for spending for the Iraq war and for the 'bailout' bill.

How does the President propose to completely do away with fraud? Does he really believe that we will be able to eliminate it completely? How ridiculous!

I do agree that 'politicking' is a large part of the reason that we cannot come to an agreement on health care reform.

Why is it that so many politicians do not seem to understand that it is government getting involved that has gotten us here. The reckless spending and the manipulation of our economy and money by the FED (and yes I do realize that the FED is not really a government agency).

So there you have my thoughts on the President's speech on health care.

For those who oppose it for the reasons I mentioned above, if you have some proof that those things are true, PLEASE show me where in the bill it is! I really do want to believe the very worst of this piece of legislation!

OH NO!! THE MARK OF THE BEAST!!! RUN!!

Okay, maybe not. :P

So this little tidbit is going all over the internet.

Here is the actual text in the bill:

SEC. 2521. NATIONAL MEDICAL DEVICE REGISTRY.
12 (a) REGISTRY.—
13 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 519 of the Federal
14 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360i) is
15 amended—
16 (A) by redesignating subsection (g) as sub-
17 section (h); and
18 (B) by inserting after subsection (f) the
19 following:
20 ‘‘National Medical Device Registry
21 ‘‘(g)(1) The Secretary shall establish a national med-
22 ical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the
23 ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and
24 outcomes data on each device that—
25 ‘‘(A) is or has been used in or on a patient; and‘‘(B) is—
2 ‘‘(i) a class III device; or
3 ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable,
4 life-supporting, or life-sustaining.
5 ‘‘(2) In developing the registry, the Secretary shall,
6 in consultation with the Commissioner of Food and Drugs,
7 the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
8 Services, the head of the Office of the National Coordi-
9 nator for Health Information Technology, and the Sec-
10 retary of Veterans Affairs, determine the best methods
11 for—
12 ‘‘(A) including in the registry, in a manner con-
13 sistent with subsection (f), appropriate information
14 to identify each device described in paragraph (1) by
15 type, model, and serial number or other unique iden-
16 tifier;
17 ‘‘(B) validating methods for analyzing patient
18 safety and outcomes data from multiple sources and
19 for linking such data with the information included
20 in the registry as described in subparagraph (A), in-
21 cluding, to the extent feasible, use of—
22 ‘‘(i) data provided to the Secretary under
23 other provisions of this chapter; and
24 ‘‘(ii) information from public and private
25 sources identified under paragraph (3);


As near as I can figure this is how the misunderstanding got started
"18 (B) by inserting after subsection" That little word "inserting" does not refer to inserting things into people but to inserting text in another part of the bill.

So relax, Obama isn't trying to give us all the mark of the beast quite yet. :D


ETA:
Okay, so I had someone bring to my attention what a Class II implantable device is funny that they were being talked about and tested way back in 2004 when our wonderful, godly president Bush was in office!