Obama May Talk About Health Care During Big Prime-Time Speech
President Obama may make health care a theme of the big prime-time speech he’s making next Tuesday about the major challenges facing this country, Obama aides confirm to me.
This could be a big deal, particularly if Obama uses the high-visibility speech (which will be made before Congress) to press the case that health care reform is essential to righting our economy.
The news comes amid other signs that Obama is moving on health care. Today’s New York Times reports that Kathleen Sebelius has emerged as the front-runner for the post of Health and Human Services secretary, a choice that would cheer reform advocates.
It’s not yet clear how central health care would be to Obama’s speech, but if it’s a major component of Obama’s message, it could signal a renewed determination to prioritize reform.
The homepage of this blog is here. Its RSS feed is here. And its Twitter feed is here.
O I’m so sorry to go OT right off the bat, but can I just say how thrilled I am that I woke up and saw that UBS is naming names of American billionaire tax evaders and that money is coming back to this country? God I love Obama for going after offshore tax shelters. I’m just thrilled.
I’m just thrilled.
Tena, I’m totally with you on UBS — scanning the NY Times this morning, ir was the first thing I shared with my wife over our morning coffee.
Back on topic: I think that real health care reform will be very tough, but if Obama is serious, reform has the potential to make a major contribution, in the middle distance, to robust economic recovery. I mean, I have pretty good health coverage through my employer, but I can tell you that if some or all of the money I spend on health care was freed up, a fair piece of it would go right into the economy.
(I posted this very late in the Craig/states secrets privilege thread, so forgive me for posting it again here.)
The quote sgwhiteinfla highlighted is actually even more damning than the one Greg cited:
The first sentence is of course a strawman. No one of any prominence is arguing that the states secret privilege is never valid, not the ACLU, not Glenn Greenwald, etc. Craig no doubt knows that. But the point is that the particular invocation we’re talking is one of the most abusive by the Bush administration (for several reasons, including it’s sweeping nature seeking to dismiss the suit rather than exclude specific evidence) and probably without precedent before the Bush administration.
.
We’ve seen this script with Craig before. He was the guy who falsely claimed that Obama’s vote for the FISA Amendment Act with retroactive immunity for the telcos, etc. was justified because FISA was expiring (it wasn’t). Face it, folks. Craig has honesty problems. We wouldn’t have any difficulty recognizing that if he worked for the Bush administration. We shouldn’t be in denial just because he works for Obama.
. We wouldn’t have any difficulty recognizing that if he worked for the Bush administration. We shouldn’t be in denial just because he works for Obama.
Posted by: Crust | February 19th, 2009 at 09:51 am
Or, Crust, conversely, we could wait and see what happens before we jump to these conclusions.
(for several reasons, including it’s sweeping nature seeking to dismiss the suit rather than exclude specific evidence) and probably without precedent before the Bush administration.
If they do not yet know which specific evidence they are willing to exclude on that basis, you and everyone else is terribly premature.
This is an ongoing case – it’s alive. That means that care must be taken in it and I don’t think there has been enough time to go through all the evidence, especially considering just how tied up it all it with federal secrecy statutes.
It’s complicated and you cannot just willy nilly start stripping things out of classified information and agreeing to reveal whatever in order to fulfill some idea of how it’s supposed to go. It’s never that simple when you have a live court case -
Sorry, Tena, but I’m not “jump[ing] to conclusions” nor for that matter are the Senators who reacted by introducing a bill to try to restrain Obama and future presidents by limiting the state secrets privilege and prevent abuses such as in this case.
.
If they do not yet know which specific evidence they are willing to exclude on that basis, you and everyone else is terribly premature.
Sorry, but that’s a bogus excuse. If they needed more time, they could have asked for — and almost certainly would have been granted — an extension.
.
If you’re not familiar with the details of the case, I recommend Greenwald.
The real lynchpin behind the health care reform battle is going to be the public option in Obama’s health care plan. I’d love to hear interviews with potential leaders on the Hill on that like Max Baucus, and whether he plans to limit the public option or have it as an actual competitive player among the private insurance plans. Max Baucus in his white paper wanted to limit the public option to just the elderly, disabled, and the low-income.
I’m with you Tena . . . the news on the UB and the rich evading taxes is by far the best news of the day . . . F I N A L L Y . . . perhaps justice will be done!
If you’re not familiar with the details of the case, I recommend Greenwald.
If Glenn Greenwald has ever seen the inside of a courtroom, he doesn’t write like it.
Tena:
Resorting to ad hom rather than the merits of the argument is never a good sign. And in this case it’s not even true. From the first line of his Salon bio:
Let me be clear, I’m not remotely equating Obama to Bush or Obama’s DOJ to Bush’s DOJ. But there’s no point pretending Obama is on the side of the angels when he or his administration is not. In fact that’s a very bad idea. Pressure on Obama to do the right thing can be very helpful. There’s a lot at stake here if you care about the rule of law.