He did okay with the speech. There was a handful of useful items in it, if you filtered through the BS. He clarified and put the health care effort in better shape than it was in before the address(!). Now it's up to what his team and the Congressional Dems do (the deeds matter to many of us more than words).

He gave support again to 3200 in the address. He supports the public option, the core of that bill, as well as wanting prompt federal expansion of another kind, too (the high-risk pool).

“By publically promising that any plan needed to be deficit neutral “

How many believe, or should have been expected to believe, this and other misstatements, especially in the context of record deficits and debts (and other misstatements before this address)?

Certainly… Here's a link to “Full Text: Obama's Health Reform Speech” the link also has a “listen” link on the page.

The speech should be a must read/must hear for everyone on every side of this debate… It's kind of hard arguing about something you don't know

Agreed everyone should have read or listened to the speech.

One interesting thing about it is it killed HR. 3200 pretty much. By publically promising that any plan needed to be deficit neutral and with the CBOs report on 3200 it fails to meet the criteria Obama laid out. There is no way he can support that legislation and not be a liar. Unless he pulls another FISA/warrantless wiretapping or no lobbyist style switcheroo, there is no way he can support it, or at least no way he can support it and have any credibility left at all.

Three words… It was redundant.

Actually it isn't.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/stateme…

So let's recap. There is explicit language in the House bill that says illegal immigrants should not receive the subsidized benefits. But we find the Republican conference is right that the legislation does not directly mention verification procedures and, for that reason, it's possible that illegal immigrants who are determined to beat the system might be able to get around the ban. But it's likely that the IRS would, at least indirectly, help to police that. And, the health choices commissioner would have the authority to set up a verification system. On balance, we rate the Republican claim Half True.

So you see its possible for illegals to beat the system and this amendment would have helped to defeat that, but the Democrats stopped the amendment.

Anyhow thanks for replying, and sorry i didn't notice it earlier. Its a long reply list.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/11/politic…

Last week, just 40 percent of these adults approved of how the president was handling health care. More, 47 percent, disapproved. After the speech, 52 percent said they approved and only 38 percent said they disapproved. Those are the best assessments for Mr. Obama's handling of health care shown all year by CBS News Polls.

President Obama's speech was particularly successful in unifying Democrats. Now, 85 percent of them approve of his handling of health care.

Approval rates also rose among independents and Republicans, but independents are still divided and only 17 percent of Republicans approve of the president's health care actions.

However, a majority of all adults still aren't sure he has met one important goal; clarifying what reforms would mean — although there has been major improvement. Before the speech, just 33 percent said Mr. Obama had clearly explained his plans for reform. That rose to 42 percent afterward, but 43 percent still said he had not clearly explained his plans.

All of the improvement on this question came from those who watched the speech. A majority of those who watched the speech, 58 percent, said the president had explained his plans, up from 40 percent before the speech. But among those who didn't watch, only one in four now say he has explained his plans — the same percentage as before the speech.

Still, most Americans remain skeptical about how reforms currently under consideration in Congress would affect them personally. Just 22 percent of Americans think the reforms under consideration in Congress would help them personally. Twenty-seven percent think the new plans would hurt them. Those numbers have hardly changed at all since last week.

So in short he raised his support but it doesn't appear very strong, since only 22 percent of those polled thing they themselves will be better off. Still he got above the 50% mark as far as approval of how he was handling things and that has to be a plus. I think that number may well come down again when he puts his plan on paper and folks get to look at the actual proposal behind the speech, the devil is in the details.

Are you surprised, though, that (as usual) crucial details and the truth were omitted in favor of appeals to the emotions of those susceptible to such an overt approach?

Did you read the entire amendment? It's an abortion loophole. This (hot political) issue is far from dead.

In addition to the link I provided originally (several days ago), you can look here, too. It's a live issue…

http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Med…

I'm scratching my head about that one too. If private insurers will salivate at the opportunity to compete for millions of new customers, why aren't they competing for them already? Are there regulations in place preventing them from doing so which Mr. Obama is proposing to drop? I would have welcomed more specifics from him here.

Or if a government-run insurer is going to offer them a sweeter deal than the private sector, how can it do so? Surely the president isn't prevaricating about the public option being self supporting. Even imagining it can operate without the 5% profit and 10% overhead of the private sector, that's still only a 15% savings. My impression is the uninsured are not priced out of the market by only 15%; surely in many cases it's more like 100% or 300%.

I'm disappointed we heard more vision-of-a-plan than actual-plan last night. It leaves us still trying to debate these possibilities and speculations about what the actual plan is. And it's disappointing from the former presidential candidate who was prepared to take on the corporate lobbyists and the unions and the other special interest groups hamstringing the government and make the hard choices.

And yes, I do realize what Obama said about anyone who criticizes the plans- and that his supporters will now use that line to avoid any real debate about whether or not the plans will be effective.

I’m scratching my head about that one too. If private insurers will salivate at the opportunity to compete for millions of new customers, why aren’t they competing for them already? Are there regulations in place preventing them from doing so which Mr. Obama is proposing to drop? I would have welcomed more specifics from him here.

Or if a government-run insurer is going to offer them a sweeter deal than the private sector, how can it do so? Surely the president isn’t prevaricating about the public option being self supporting. Even imagining it can operate without the 5% profit and 10% overhead of the private sector, that’s still only a 15% savings. My impression is the uninsured are not priced out of the market by only 15%; surely in many cases it’s more like 100% or 300%.

I’m disappointed we heard more vision-of-a-plan than actual-plan last night. It leaves us still trying to debate these possibilities and speculations about what the actual plan is. And it’s disappointing from the former presidential candidate who was prepared to take on the corporate lobbyists and the unions and the other special interest groups hamstringing the government.

The best, most detailed write up I've seen that's in plain language and easiest to understand was on FactCheck.org and addressed several points of a chain email that were incorrect. And they were able to do so line by line in the legislation:
http://wordpress.asc.upenn.edu/2009/08/twenty-s…

I'll warn you that it's VERY long.

CStanley wrote: “All I'm saying is that the illegals who don't have insurance now won't have any greater ability to purchase it after the bill is passed than they do right now.”

And?.. Is that any worse than what they (and we) have now?

CStanley, you must have missed the part where he said, “I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it.”

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which…

In other words, your tax dollars aren't going to help Reverend Johnson's daughter “fix it” when she sleeps with her boyfriend.

“For the years after 2014, we anticipate that the fiscal impact would improve gradually, so that the proposal would tend to become more than self-financing and thereby would reduce future budget deficits or increase future surpluses.”

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/republican-inf…

What was proposed was NOT a separate immigration bill– which is one I would agree is needed. What continues to fascinate me is that some Republicans seem so darn intent on putting this in the health care bill and opposed to a separate piece of legislation to address the overall problem of illegal immigration. I would guess that tacking it onto a bill they already plan to vote against makes it easy enough to avoid the issue. They can say, “Oh we tried to pass immigration legislation” and add a *nudge nudge* and a *wink wink*. I would wager that they wouldn't DARE pass it separately.