Bush State of the Union- health care, alternative energy?

[banyon]

Bush speech to showcase domestic issues
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 14 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Delivering his first State of the Union address to a Democratic-controlled Congress, President Bush hopes to balance a rebuke of his Iraq policy already promised by lawmakers with a high-profile invitation to cooperate on vexing domestic problems.

In Tuesday night's speech before a joint session of Congress, Bush plans to dangle ideas — some new, some recycled — on reducing America's oil dependence and making health care more available, among others. Aware that 2008 presidential contenders and new Democratic leaders present fierce competition for headlines, the president has a much-abbreviated topic list in an attempt to capture the public's attention.

In the days ahead of the 9 p.m. EST speech, the White House took great pains to detail its health care portions. The cold reception they received on Capitol Hill offered a striking reminder of the difficulty the president faces in the new political climate.

Bush is proposing to change to how the tax code treats health insurance, by counting employer contributions toward health insurance as taxable income while establishing a standard deduction for anyone with insurance. The White House says it would introduce increased market forces to the health care industry and make coverage more affordable for the uninsured. Aides estimated the plan would represent a tax increase for only about 20 percent of employer-covered workers.

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., chairman of a key health subcommittee in the House, said he would not even consider holding hearings on the proposal. He dismissed it as a dead-on-arrival attempt to encourage employers to stop offering health insurance.

"You can assume a lot of people are going to do the old 'it's dead on arrival,' " White House press secretary Tony Snow said on CBS' "The Early Show."

"It's not," he said. "This is a proposal that's going to make health care cheaper for 100 million Americans or more."

With his job approval rating hovering in the mid-30 percent range, Bush's overall agenda for the speech was twofold: present himself to the public as a leader with a sincere desire to work across party lines on practical solutions, and place pressure onto Democratic leaders to either go along or offer alternatives.

"The presidential season is already upon us. I am personally very skeptical that they will make major progress," said Peter Robinson, a former White House speechwriter for Ronald Reagan who now is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. "But they must make the attempt; they must make a good-faith effort."

A new AP-AOL News poll found that six in 10 Americans are not convinced the Bush administration and Democrats in Congress can work together to solve the nation's problems. Americans rated health care, the economy and the situation in Iraq as the issues they care about most.

Bush was not expected to rehash the speech he gave less than two weeks ago laying out his revamped plan for Iraq, the centerpiece of which is a 21,500-troop increase in the U.S. military presence. Instead, he was to broadly defend his stand that Iraq is part of a war on terror that will make Americans safer.

On Capitol Hill, the pushback from congressional Republicans to the troop increase grew even on the eve of the president's speech.

Three GOP senators and one moderate Democrat unveiled nonbinding legislation on Monday expressing disagreement with Bush's plan and urging him to consider "all options and alternatives."

"We've had four other surges since we first went into Iraq," said Sen. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record), R-Maine, one of the sponsors. "None of them produced a long-lasting change in the situation on the ground."

In the House, members of the GOP leadership drafted a series of what they called "strategic benchmarks" and said the White House should submit monthly reports to Congress measuring the Iraqi government's progress in meeting them.

Meanwhile, majority Democrats intend to hold votes within days in the House and Senate on tougher bills declaring that the troop increase is "not in the national interest."

Bush returned to the White House on Monday from a long weekend at the Camp David presidential retreat, flashing a thumbs-up and a big grin to reporters before going inside for more practice sessions.

The White House has promised the president will be bold. But the broad themes — energy, education, health care, immigration — were familiar and there were no hints of dramatic new initiatives, particularly as war costs and huge federal deficits preclude anything too costly.

The president is expected to address:

_Health care. Bush will propose a tax deduction of $7,500 for individuals and $15,000 for families regardless of whether they buy their own health insurance or receive medical coverage at work. He also would subject employer-sponsored health care benefits to taxation, meaning those with more policies worth more than the deduction would see a tax hike. But those who get policies at work worth less than the deduction, the preponderance of workers with employer-provided insurance, would get a tax break. Another proposal would give some federal money now going to hospitals and other facilities to states for programs to reduce the number of uninsured.

_Energy. Bush is expected to call for a sharp escalation in the federal mandate on use of ethanol as a renewable fuel alternative, a goal that may prove difficult to meet. He also may seek the power to raise fuel economy standards for passenger cars, authority he also asked for last year. Some Democrats worried the plan would give transportation officials overly broad authority to change the system.

_Education. Bush will push for Congress to renew his education accountability law, No Child Left Behind, which expires this year. Democrats will expect him to go along with increases in spending to help schools make the required progress under the law.

___

Associated Press writers Ben Feller, Kevin Freking and David Espo contributed to this report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/state_of_union

[banyon]

More crumbs for the masses, or is he willing to sell out anything, small government be damned, to continue the fiasco overseas?

[oldandslow]

More crumbs for the masses, or is he willing to sell out anything, small government be damned, to continue the fiasco overseas?

He does border on the obsessive, does he not?

That being said, GWB is farther away from small government than half the dem senators elected today.

[patteeu]

He does border on the obsessive, does he not?

That being said, GWB is farther away from small government than half the dem senators elected today.

You should do stand-up.

GWB may not be a small government leader, but there is no reason to believe there are many, if any, dem senators who favor small government either. Talk is cheap. GWB can talk about small government.

And it's especially rich coming from a guy who wants a big government push to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. I'm not confusing you with someone else am I?

Moving on to the substance of the article, I kind of like his health care proposal. Health insurance needs to be severed from employment, IMO. This is a step in the right direction. Let me know if you two small government fans (banyon and oldandslow) actually want the government to get out of the businsess of subsidizing health care altogether and I'll sign on to your plan.

[banyon]

Moving on to the substance of the article, I kind of like his health care proposal. Health insurance needs to be severed from employment, IMO. This is a step in the right direction. Let me know if you two small government fans (banyon and oldandslow) actually want the government to get out of the businsess of subsidizing health care altogether and I'll sign on to your plan.

I'm for universal health care. It's time for us to join the rest of the industrialized world. Bush's plan does zero to address spiralling health care costs. And, of course, tax deductions don't really help those who couldn't afford it in the first place. I assume he will allow anyone (even the top 1%) to claim this deduction, so it is really just another tired 3 card Monte game.

[patteeu]

I'm for universal health care. It's time for us to join the rest of the industrialized world. Bush's plan does zero to address spiralling health care costs. And, of course, tax deductions don't really help those who couldn't afford it in the first place. I assume he will allow anyone (even the top 1%) to claim this deduction, so it is really just another tired 3 card Monte game.

Getting employers out of the business of providing health care would be a good step in the right direction toward restraining health care cost growth, IMO. People making their own decisions about what health care plan to purchase would make better decisions than HR bureaucrats. And if employers weren't able to purchase discounted group policies, individuals wouldn't have to pay as much for their own coverage. It would be more equitable since everyone would be buying as individuals.

Everyone (even the top 1%) who get health care through their employers already get the tax advantage. This just regularizes the benefit instead of having people who work for companies with lavish plans getting a far larger benefit than those who have austere plans and it seperates the benefit from employment.

I'm ashamed of myself for this, but I'm tempted to say that health insurance will work best if it is universal and if all individuals are a part of the same actuarial group. It's a way too complex issue for me to have a strong opinion about how it should work, but it's a big problem if healthy people can opt out and leave only sick people seeking insurance.

[noa]

I remember reading in 2003 that the Congressional Budget Office said that 60 million Americans lack health insurance. The Institute of Medicine also did a study that found that 18,000 Americans died in 2002 because of lack of health insurance (no transplants, no preventative care). http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm

Something needs to change. One reason I can respect Sam Brownback is that he takes pro-life to mean pro-life in all situations, not just unborn fetuses, as he said on Stephanopouls' show this week. That means that if we have 18,000 people dying unnecessarily a year because they can't get insurance, pro-lifers should be as concerned about that as we are about abortion. For some reason, I don't get the impression that health insurance is the top priority for many in the Christian right, though.

[Pittsie]

It's a way too complex issue for me to have a strong opinion about how it should work, but it's a big problem if healthy people can opt out and leave only sick people seeking insurance.

Would you like to hazard a guess whether W's proposal will likely encourage or discourage healthy people to opt out?

[Logical]

On Capitol Hill, the pushback from congressional Republicans to the troop increase grew even on the eve of the president's speech.


:clap::clap::clap:

That is encouraging.

[patteeu]

Would you like to hazard a guess whether W's proposal will likely encourage or discourage healthy people to opt out?

Based on the limited information in this OP, I'd say it will encourage it at the same time it discourages people from being over-insured. It's a double-edged sword unless there is more to the proposal than we see here.

[patteeu]

I remember reading in 2003 that the Congressional Budget Office said that 60 million Americans lack health insurance. The Institute of Medicine also did a study that found that 18,000 Americans died in 2002 because of lack of health insurance (no transplants, no preventative care). http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm

Something needs to change. One reason I can respect Sam Brownback is that he takes pro-life to mean pro-life in all situations, not just unborn fetuses, as he said on Stephanopouls' show this week. That means that if we have 18,000 people dying unnecessarily a year because they can't get insurance, pro-lifers should be as concerned about that as we are about abortion. For some reason, I don't get the impression that health insurance is the top priority for many in the Christian right, though.

I'm skeptical about the 18,000 number. The question here is what level of coverage is appropriate as medical science advances. Should everyone be covered by the most high tech and expensive solutions or is there a more basic level of coverage that is acceptable with cutting edge medical care only available to those who can afford it? If we used the medical care that Bill Gates can afford as a baseline, the number might be even higher than 18,000. If we use emergency medical care as a baseline, the number may be close to zero. I'd have to see the assumptions to decide how to view that 18,000 number. And to be honest, 18,000 is really a pretty small number anyway compared to what it would cost to cover 60 million to prevent those deaths.

[pikesome]

I'm for universal health care. It's time for us to join the rest of the industrialized world. Bush's plan does zero to address spiralling health care costs. And, of course, tax deductions don't really help those who couldn't afford it in the first place. I assume he will allow anyone (even the top 1%) to claim this deduction, so it is really just another tired 3 card Monte game.

My parents lived under British healthcare and my best friend's wife is Canadian nurse working in the US. I'm pretty sure I don't want to join "the industrialized world" on this issue. There are so many factors involved here that no single solution will fix it. Medicare makes everyone who isn't on it pay extra twice, once in the form of taxes and again to make up the difference between what the provider wants and what the gov pays. Malpractice, educational expenses, and the expected rewards for the years of study and training all combine to increase the amount each doctor demands. More malpractice, the requirement to provide basic care essentially free, and inability of patients to pay combine from the hospital's point of view. If a patient can't pay for an operation, where does that money come from? It comes from the profit made on the people who can pay. Hospitals do give away services when they can, sometimes, as long as it doesn't hurt their bottom line.

Getting employers out of the business of providing health care would be a good step in the right direction toward restraining health care cost growth, IMO. People making their own decisions about what health care plan to purchase would make better decisions than HR bureaucrats. And if employers weren't able to purchase discounted group policies, individuals wouldn't have to pay as much for their own coverage. It would be more equitable since everyone would be buying as individuals.

If people spent their own money, there would be no $5 aspirin. People wouldn't pay for it and the hospital would either have to lower the cost or lose that sale.

[Direckshun]

The speech is supposed to focus on domestic issues...

Yet there will be no mention of New Orleans.

[pikesome]

The speech is supposed to focus on domestic issues...

Yet there will be no mention of New Orleans.

What would you like to hear?

[patteeu]

The speech is supposed to focus on domestic issues...

Yet there will be no mention of New Orleans.

I understand that Boise and Cleveland are going to be snubbed too.

[Logical]

I understand that Boise and Cleveland are going to be snubbed too.

I think you are trying to be a smart ass, but just in case I am wrong. What disasters on the order of Katrina did they suffer?

[penchief]

I'm for universal health care. It's time for us to join the rest of the industrialized world. Bush's plan does zero to address spiralling health care costs. And, of course, tax deductions don't really help those who couldn't afford it in the first place. I assume he will allow anyone (even the top 1%) to claim this deduction, so it is really just another tired 3 card Monte game.

It's time for universal health care. IMO, it's a no-brainer. The right (and Bush) is still blindly pushing a failed one-size-fits-all free market solution for everything.

The free market may be the ideal vehicle for some things but when it comes to health care and the environment, the more leeway the free market is given and the more the nation's resources are laid in the laps of corporate entities, the more average Americans get screwed.

The track record never seems to support the theory. In this instance, whenever the market has the opportunity to exhert more influence it does so in a way that benefits elitism and greed over the public good.

[patteeu]

I think you are trying to be a smart ass, but just in case I am wrong. What disasters on the order of Katrina did they suffer?

Just being a smart ass, although if it weren't for a season-making victory over the Chiefs, Cleveland had to suffer through a pretty disastrous NFL season.

[patteeu]

It's time for universal health care. IMO, it's a no-brainer. The right (and Bush) is still blindly pushing a failed one-size-fits-all free market solution for everything.

The free market may be the ideal vehicle for some things but when it comes to health care and the environment, the more leeway the free market is given and the more the nation's resources are laid in the laps of corporate entities, the more average Americans get screwed.

The track record never seems to support the theory. In this instance, whenever the market has the opportunity to exhert more influence it does so in a way that benefits elitism and greed over the public good.

You mean the way markets have pulled the standard of living of America's poor up to a level that is nearly unthinkable in the third world? TVs, automobiles, telephones, non-dirt floors, clean running water, abundant food, free radio, jobs, washing machines and on and on and on.

Yep, markets have benefited the elite. Even the American poor are a part of that elite.

[banyon]

You mean the way markets have pulled the standard of living of America's poor up to a level that is nearly unthinkable in the third world? TVs, automobiles, telephones, non-dirt floors, clean running water, abundant food, free radio, jobs, washing machines and on and on and on.

Yep, markets have benefited the elite. Even the American poor are a part of that elite.

Actually the period of greatest real (not nominal) growth, post WW2 was a period of record taxation and regulation. Free market theory has ever done little but help those best able to help themselves.

[penchief]

You mean the way markets have pulled the standard of living of America's poor up to a level that is nearly unthinkable in the third world? TVs, automobiles, telephones, non-dirt floors, clean running water, abundant food, free radio, jobs, washing machines and on and on and on.

Yep, markets have benefited the elite. Even the American poor are a part of that elite.

That's a very good point. Cheap products are a benefit of the free market. However, it is such because it is financially beneficial for those who make the rules. Raping the earth in order to create plastic gadgets for mass consumption is beneficial for those who have made profit their God.

However, the basics of human dignity are not for sale at Wal-Mart. Medical care, quality education, higher education, housing and shelter, insurance policies, etc. are becoming more and more out of reach for average Americans.

It is true that, if you wish to highlight the "disposable consumer" side of America, it is valid for you to make that point. But if there isn't something in it for the power-quo, then common sense and human compassion even get shat on by greed.

[oldandslow]

Banyon:

I keep waiting for free market disciples to give me ONE empirical example where government pulling out of health care has actually increased life expectency, lowered infant mortality, etc....

I can give dozens of examples illustrating that countries with MORE govt intervention in health care actually increases life expectency, lowers infant mortality, etc.

Further, to Patteeu's point - clean water usually comes from some sort of governmental action, i.e., rural water districts, city water, etc. Electricity was heavily government subsidized in its creation and sometimes completely built by govt action like the TVA. Without govt subsidy in roads and highways the free market in this nation would not be squat.

Community action (the govt) is the single common denominator here. The markets are a by-product.

[patteeu]

Actually the period of greatest real (not nominal) growth, post WW2 was a period of record taxation and regulation. Free market theory has ever done little but help those best able to help themselves.

When were those years and how do you measure regulation?

I'm not sure about how taxes are tied into this, but perhaps they have an indirect effect? Don't forget, though, that taxation is more than just income taxation.

[patteeu]

That's a very good point. Cheap products are a benefit of the free market. However, it is such because it is financially beneficial for those who make the rules. Raping the earth in order to create plastic gadgets for mass consumption is beneficial for those who have made profit their God.

However, the basics of human dignity are not for sale at Wal-Mart. Medical care, quality education, higher education, housing and shelter, insurance policies, etc. are becoming more and more out of reach for average Americans.

It is true that, if you wish to highlight the "disposable consumer" side of America, it is valid for you to make that point. But if there isn't something in it for the power-quo, then common sense and human compassion even get shat on by greed.

My list was about standard of living, not materialism. Clean water is a "thing" that can be possessed, but it's most important because it's clean, not because it's water. Most poor people can find water if they aren't too picky about how clean it is. Likewise for food. Some of the "things" on my list are important, not because of their material value, but because of the way they enhance productivity (e.g. washing machines, refrigerators, etc). And jobs, of course, are not simply plastic gadgets born of a raped earth.

The bottom line is that most poor people in America have very little to complain about, including health care. They ARE the elite when the context is the world.

[patteeu]

Further, to Patteeu's point - clean water usually comes from some sort of governmental action, i.e., rural water districts, city water, etc. Electricity was heavily government subsidized in its creation and sometimes completely built by govt action like the TVA. Without govt subsidy in roads and highways the free market in this nation would not be squat.

Community action (the govt) is the single common denominator here. The markets are a by-product.

The US is obviously not a pure free market system, but by comparison, it is a more market based system than many. If government is what has led to our prosperity as you seem to believe, the Soviet Union should have been the nirvana that they pretended to be.

[Logical]

...

The bottom line is that most poor people in America have very little to complain about, including health care. They ARE the elite when the context is the third world.

Fixed your post. If you compare it to Japan, Europe etc we rank fairly poorly for our poor.

[oldandslow]

The US is obviously not a pure free market system, but by comparison, it is a more market based system than many. If government is what has led to our prosperity as you seem to believe, the Soviet Union should have been the nirvana that they pretended to be.

No Patteeu. That is not my argument at all. I am simply stating that there are areas where the govt should be involved. Most of the major developments for the public good - everything from the Hoover dam to electricity in the Ozarks - came about through government action. Why do you not simply admit this? Health care, I feel, fits into this niche.

According to you some anarchial, libertarian, bananna republic should be nirvana. I would venture to guess that most are not.

...and you were the one to first bring up clean water et al. - not me.

[patteeu]

No Patteeu. That is not my argument at all. I am simply stating that there are areas where the govt should be involved. Most of the major developments for the public good - everything from the Hoover dam to electricity in the Ozarks - came about through government action. Why do you not simply admit this? Health care, I feel, fits into this niche.

According to you some anarchial, libertarian, bananna republic should be nirvana. I would venture to guess that most are not.

...and you were the one to first bring up clean water et al. - not me.

Most of the economic development and practical innovation in our country has come about from private enterprise not from government-run business or government employed inventors, why do you not simply admit this? :rolleyes:

Whose water was cleaner, ours or the Soviets'? Whose system incorporated more market-based characteristics, ours or the Soviets'?

If you don't try to pretend I'm for anarchial libertarianism or that "free market disciples" are for anarchial libertarianism, I won't pretend you're for pure central planning.

Before you ever entered this thread, I expressed some reservation about a pure libertarian solution to health care so it's funny that you now try to put me in that box.

[oldandslow]

Most of the economic development and practical innovation in our country has come about from private enterprise not from government-run business or government employed inventors, why do you not simply admit this? :rolleyes:

Whose water was cleaner, ours or the Soviets'? Whose system incorporated more market-based characteristics, ours or the Soviets'?

If you don't try to pretend I'm for anarchial libertarianism or that "free market disciples" are for anarchial libertarianism, I won't pretend you're for pure central planning.

Before you ever entered this thread, I expressed some reservation about a pure libertarian solution to health care so it's funny that you now try to put me in that box.

Patteeu...

Most of our economic development and practical innovation came from private enterprise. YUP.

I agree - The soviets were an horrific government - Of course, I don't subscribe to 100% central planning.

Doesn't change my argument one iota. Health care, like clean water, belongs in the public domain.

[Logical]

Most of the economic development and practical innovation in our country has come about from private enterprise not from government-run business or government employed inventors, why do you not simply admit this? :rolleyes:

....

Economic development yes

Not so sure about practical innovation. A huge amount of practical innovation comes from people/universtities and agencies (NASA, NIH) that rely on government grants or direct funding for their major source of income. As a country we do a better job of hiding our government funding for research but it is still a major reality.

[patteeu]

Patteeu...

Most of our economic development and practical innovation came from private enterprise. YUP.

I agree - The soviets were an horrific government - Of course, I don't subscribe to 100% central planning.

Doesn't change my argument one iota. Health care, like clean water, belongs in the public domain.

As long as we are unwilling to let people die in the gutter around us, health care will always be in the public domain to one degree or another. You seem to be in agreement that 100% central planning would be a bad idea and I agree that pure laissez-faire is incompatible with our social expectations. That means that any argument we have between us is about what mixture of government involvement and market forces would be appropriate. So, IMO, calling out "market disciples" as if we are all seeking anarchy is beside the point.

[banyon]

Banyon:

I keep waiting for free market disciples to give me ONE empirical example where government pulling out of health care has actually increased life expectency, lowered infant mortality, etc....

I can give dozens of examples illustrating that countries with MORE govt intervention in health care actually increases life expectency, lowers infant mortality, etc.

Further, to Patteeu's point - clean water usually comes from some sort of governmental action, i.e., rural water districts, city water, etc. Electricity was heavily government subsidized in its creation and sometimes completely built by govt action like the TVA. Without govt subsidy in roads and highways the free market in this nation would not be squat.

Community action (the govt) is the single common denominator here. The markets are a by-product.

You are right, the total market acolytes are pretty afraid of empirical data, except in a broad "you are a commie" type of way. We've had almost no system in place for years, and what do we have to show for it? The highest medical costs by far in the world (and results below average). Wait, why hasn't the market fixed that?

[banyon]

As long as we are unwilling to let people die in the gutter around us, health care will always be in the public domain to one degree or another. You seem to be in agreement that 100% central planning would be a bad idea and I agree that pure laissez-faire is incompatible with our social expectations. That means that any argument we have between us is about what mixture of government involvement and market forces would be appropriate. So, IMO, calling out "market disciples" as if we are all seeking anarchy is beside the point.

Should have read this prior to my post.

Well-stated. :clap: If we could just put this post at the beginning of about 80% of economic-related threads, a lot of the silly parts of these discussions would float away.

Of course, you did start the laissez-faire/market discussion when you blasted penchief's relatively even-handed analysis of the situation as if having a radical market position were the only reasonable alternative. in post #19.

[patteeu]

Should have read this prior to my post.

Well-stated. :clap: If we could just put this post at the beginning of about 80% of economic-related threads, a lot of the silly parts of these discussions would float away.

Of course, you did start the laissez-faire/market discussion when you blasted penchief's relatively even-handed analysis of the situation as if having a radical market position were the only reasonable alternative. in post #19.

I'd argue that penchief introduced extreme rhetoric before I did (in the post I was responding to in #19, reproduced below), but who's counting? :)

It's time for universal health care. IMO, it's a no-brainer. The right (and Bush) is still blindly pushing a failed one-size-fits-all free market solution for everything.

The free market may be the ideal vehicle for some things but when it comes to health care and the environment, the more leeway the free market is given and the more the nation's resources are laid in the laps of corporate entities, the more average Americans get screwed.

The track record never seems to support the theory. In this instance, whenever the market has the opportunity to exhert more influence it does so in a way that benefits elitism and greed over the public good.