The speech put forth a good argument for moving reform forward in Congress, but it was also a blunt reminder to those who think health care should be a human right and not a privilege that Obama has no problem with protecting the interests of private health insurance companies. what if Americans no longer want health care to be something they have to go shopping for?

::::::::

Flickr photo by NESRI

In a primetime speech that had been highly anticipated, Obama made it clear that it was time to stop the bickering and get the job done. He addressed some of the lies and myths Republicans had been spreading and he explained why he would like to not simply scrap the for-profit health care system that had created so many of America's problems.

Obama concluded his speech by describing to Congress what the last days of Ted Kennedy's life had been. He read a part of Kennedy's letter that Kennedy had wanted delivered upon his death and proceeded to use Kennedy to compel Congress and Americans skeptical of reform that reform could contribute to the greater good of society.

The speech put forth a good argument for moving reform forward in Congress, but it was also a blunt reminder to those who think health care should be a human right and not a privilege that Obama has no problem with protecting the interests of private health insurance companies.

Americans were constantly referred to as consumers who would appreciate â??choiceâ? and â??competition.â? He explained how a â??market exchangeâ? would be setup and it would keep prices down (hopefully). But, what if Americans no longer want health care to be something they have to go shopping for?

What if Americans doubt the capacity of government to change the nature of the beast?

What if they want to take the market out of market-based health care due to what they know about the history of health maintenance organizations and how they will always be interested in what's profitable and not what's cost-effective?

Obama may not think he is intentionally making it difficult for Democrats and progressives to maintain momentum in the fight for health care reform, but some Americans disagree with the fact that much of the proposal stops short of what the fierce urgency of now should compel Americans to work toward.

It also doesn't help that, in his naïve quest to create a Washington that is post-partisan, he is constantly making it seem like progressive and Republican camps share equal responsibility for the vitriolic debate the public witnessed over the summer.

Republicans have been allowed to argue their lies and myths about death panels and creeping socialism that will result from reform while progressives have had hardly an opportunity to explain why a single-payer health care system or why a society where health care is a human right might be better than the society and system of health care America has now.

Regrettably, Obama did something last night that will only embolden Republicans especially Republicans like Boustany who wish to ensure Americans fear Obama is planning a government takeover of health care. Obama chose to use numbers that the far right had been using instead of U.S. Census numbers for quite some time.

Typically, Obama had in speeches told the public that 47 million Americans were uninsured. Despite this being the case since 2005, Obama used a figure from the Kaiser Family Foundation and said in his speech that 30 million Americans are uninsured.

Prominent conservative columnist and author of The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President--and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time wrote in a blog post:

In his speech tonight, the president introduced a new number in the health care debate. Remember all those statements from Democrats, including Barack Obama himself, that 47 million Americans are without health insurance? That's no longer the operative number. "There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage," the president said in tonight's speech.

But on August 10, at a town hall meeting, Obama referred to the "46, 47 million people without health insurance in our country"" And on July 23, he said, "This is not just about the 47 million Americans who don't have any health insurance at all""

What's the difference? Obama appears to be choosing his words carefully. There is a difference between Americans who "cannot get coverage" and Americans who "don't have any health insurance at all." The interesting question is why Obama has chosen to downgrade the number from 47 million to 30 million. Look for Democrats to begin using the new figure in making the case for Obamacare. [emphasis added]

It could be argued that this is insignificant and Obama won't have to worry about this impacting whether Congress passes reform or not. However, it's not that they are preventing reform from passing but that with every inch they manage to get Obama to give them reform gets worse.

When Obama shifts his rhetoric to make it more difficult for Republicans to rebut his arguments, he makes it harder for his administration, Democrats, and other Americans to make the moral argument that all Americans are entitled to health care.

Obama's mistake is that he is trying to do all Americans a favor by reforming a service in America that is rife with all the symptoms that come from America's free market system. But, he places the preservation of private health insurance above ensuring that reform establishes a system where saving choice, money, time, and lives is of the utmost importance.

In trying to do both, he is finding it difficult to grapple with Republican arguments against government being involved in health care. And, each time he minimizes the importance of the â??public optionâ?, each time he suggests that not many Americans will really use it, Republicans will wonder if the spending and costs are really worth it.

I have a supreme issue with a key part of Obama's speech last night:

â??"There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada's, where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everyone. On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.

I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have. Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch. And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the past several months"�[emphasis added]

Yes, it works. It brings exorbitant profits to health insurance providers on a daily basis, but sadly, Obama is doing a supreme disservice to Americans when he makes this argument.

Obama is looking out for greed (or as he euphemized it in his speech last night, â??Wall Street's relentless profit expectationsâ?) when he suggests that a radical shift to a single-payer system would somehow negatively impact one-sixth or more of our nation's economy. In reality, single-payer health care could create 2.6 million jobs, according to a study done by the Institute for Health & Socio-Economic Policy (IHSP), a non-profit policy research arm of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, and significantly enhance our economy.

Just think of how corporations and businesses could increase their bottom line if they were not under some government regulation to provide their employees health insurance? Certainly, if government did it for them, their thirst for profit would not be impeded by a requirement to give workers money for health care.

Simply, it is unconscionable to me to read or hear the words of Ted Kennedy and simply be content with minimal or incremental reforms. It is unconscionable to be at this juncture and not go all the way to establishing a system that emancipates humanity from the tyranny of our nation's for-profit health care system.

â??What we face is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of the policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.â? â??Ted Kennedy, from a letter delivered to Obama upon Kennedy's death

The words of Kennedy compel us to make health care something all Americans are entitled to, something Americans do not have to go bargain hunting for in their non-existent spare time.

I'm willing to get up and fight and get excited about health care as a human right. Anything less keeps the racket alive and flourishing.

From last night's coverage of Obama's primetime speech, here are two videos that provide great commentary.

One, this is a video featuring Sean Hannity interviewing Frank Luntz. (Yes, I know, Hannity.) I have it posted here so you can hear wordsmith Luntz talk about the speech and so you can know now what rhetoric we might expect Republicans to start using so they can further dilute health care reform.

Two, this is Barney Frank talking with Rachel Maddow. He addresses some key elements of the speech and even talks about what annoyed him. Most importantly, he addresses Obama's urge to treat Congress as if they exist in a post-partisan world.

Authors Bio:
Kevin Gosztola is managing editor of Shadowproof Press. He also produces and co-hosts the weekly podcast, "Unauthorized Disclosure." He was an editor for OpEdNews.com