The guy can give a speech.  I’ll give that to him.  But, as President Obama said last night, “there remain some significant details to be ironed out.”  Here is what I left with:

1. There was a strong emphasis on telling everyone that nothing will change and everything will change.

President Obama emphasized that he would not sign a bill that increases the deficit by 1 cent, but the bill will cost $900 billion?

“We’ve estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system, a system that is currently full of waste and abuse.”

If we are truly able to realize these savings, shouldn’t we be doing so now? Medicare and Medicaid are rife with fraud and abuse.

[There will be a] “not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange… It would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance.  No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance.”

I don’t think this addresses the critical issue: Why would a company continue to pay for a private policy if there is a cheaper alternative for their employees and the fee for discontinuing the insurance program is less than the original cost of providing it?

On another note, I think restricting insurance companies from dropping patients because they get sick and getting rid of pre-existing conditions clauses are a great idea - even if I have to pay more.

2. There was a strong emphasis on telling everyone that someone else would be the one who would have to pay for this. Here are some examples:

As it was presented, if a company chooses not to provide insurance, they will be fined.  BUT “for those individuals and small businesses who still can’t afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we’ll provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need.”

I like the logic of fining an individual for not carrying health insurance only to provide it for them via tax credit… Hmmm.

“Individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance. Likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers.  [BUT] There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still can’t afford coverage, and 95 percent of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements.”

So only the biggest, richest corporations (which are probably those who already provide insurance) will have to pay for this? And I’m not sure I understand this “narrow profit margin” qualification or “hardship waiver”… Isn’t that rewarding inefficiency and poor products?

3. President Obama acknowledges that medical malpractice is an issue, but what action needs to be taken?

I’m not actually on board with this issue to the extent that many of our readers are. My dad is a pediatrician and he has told me his malpractice insurance has tripled over the years. I don’t think this is good. On the other hand, several independent organizations AND the CBO have concluded through several studies that malpractice suits make up less than 1.5% of all medical cost. Last year, there was $30.6 Billion spent on medical malpractice in a $2 Trillion industry. That is not a significant amount.

I question whether the increase in malpractice insurance is going to pay for litigation or if it is just becoming profits for companies who are playing the victim card.

4. There was definitely a “right-wing” straw man set up to knock down

“On the right, there are those who argue that we should end employer-based systems and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.” Do you know of any republican who is promoting this idea?

5. Here comes the post office again, with universities mixed in.

“I’ve insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects.  But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers, and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.”

We’ve been told the public option will work like the Post Office – which is running a $7 Billion deficit. Now we are told it will run like universities – which also rely on billions in federal aid for its customers to attend. How is this not costing the taxpayers?

Second issue, who wants to work at a place that limits salaries? Maybe they should say it will be like Fannie and Freddie? Oh wait, compensation wasn’t limited there.

6. The critical point!

“You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem.  They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom.”

Ron Paul couldn’t have said it better himself… but he’d vote against the bill.

Last 3 posts by Eric B.

• Nassim Taleb on the Economy - June 25th, 2010
• Full Circle - May 3rd, 2010
• The Dark Side :) - April 5th, 2010