House Majority Whip James Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat, said the remark was the latest in a long line of political attacks by Wilson.

“Joe Wilson took our state's reputation to a new low. I thought Mark Sanford had taken it as low as it could go, but this is beyond the pale," Clyburn said.

"Joe is very confrontational," he added. "He held his first town hall meeting three blocks from my house at my kid's high school. Now why would he have this town hall meeting in my congressional district, three blocks from my house in my kid's high school? It's not in his district.

That's the kind of guy Joe Wilson is. He loves confronting people. So he was confronting the president, just as he was confronting me."

This is how I felt for the most part although I will give him credit for not backing down on a couple of really sticky issues. I really expected him to come out and be like, "okay, Public Option is off the table now and Co-Ops are the way to go" and I have to admire him for sticking to his guns a bit. Also like that he directly addressed the malpractice lawsuit issue and is looking into potential savings there.

I don't really agree with the Public Option (I'd rather see the Co-Op idea get some wings) but thought he did a good job with the speech overall and it was refreshing to see a President stick to his guns for a change. It won't be enough to get agreement from Republicans but he has no hope of that anyway.

It would have been an epic fail for him to say the Public Option is off the table. It would destroy any chance of getting any reasonable health care reform done during his administration and could cripple his administration/strip him of much of his political capital.

I have yet to fully understand all the anti-sentiment against a public option, since the format they want to use is essentially what exist for many state workers across this country and most of our elected representatives. I'm all for creating a health care co-op like our local public power commissions, but the current proponents of this idea are really using it to block any meaningful reform that might eliminate the insurance monopolies that exist in certain states.

It's because political debate is not so much about what's best for the country anymore, as it is about who wins the game; who gets to keep power. Maybe not for all politicians, but certainly for a great number of them. And, if you want the money, you gotta play the game.

(This from someone who is admittedly ignorant of the inner workings. Just an opinion and perspective from way outside the system.)

I bet FOX has different numbers on that issue.

I'm not arguing against this, I just think a lot of people who now support the idea of co-ops due to their fears of "socialized" medicine are completely unaware that a lot of politicians are using co-ops to turn health care reform legislation into a complete farce.

I by no means consider myself an expert on the different plans that have been proposed so my opinion of the public option is based only on how I understand it which I admit could be off-base.

My main concern with a public option is the small business aspect. As I understand it, small businesses will have the option of either supplying insurance for their employees or paying an 8% payroll tax to support those employees entering into the public plan (as it's assumed most of them will choose the public option over a private one).

I've only worked for small business in my professional life (three of them total) and insurance has always been supplied by the company. Supplying insurance is always a major cost for the owners and an area they are always looking to save in (especially with rising costs every year). With the company I work for now, insurance represents 11% of my paycheck. I think the White House is underestimating how many small businesses will just opt for the 8% payroll tax over supplying insurance on their own because it will be cheaper for them.

If too many small business do this, the insurance companies will lose money, lay people off, etc. which will cause different problems down the road.

Again, this is my take based on a fairly limited understanding of the proposed plan. I welcome corrections from you all.

I just really was glad to see him call everyone on their bullshit and to clarify some worries the under-informed middle has.

I was really pleased that he used Ted Kennedy's letter in the speech and finally tried to make people look in the mirror and realize that providing health care to the less fortunate, whether that be a person with pre-existing condition that makes $75,000 a year and was denied coverage, or someone living at the poverty line, a freelancer/independent contractor, or a small business owner, is something that an actual caring human being would want for this country.

My problem with the public option is it will not go nearly far enough. If it gets in at all it will end up as being something in addition to rather than instead of private insurance. If you look at your problem as spending far too much and getting far too little, a public option just filling in the gaping holes while not intruding on insurance companies and their profits will do nothing to address that problem.

Single payer, taking the profits out of the equation could save money and improve care, but that's not even really on the table since despite their being total scumbags and profit mongers at the expense of the American people, no one really has the nuts to say we need to dismantle the health insurance industry.

I'm about to throw up my hands and say something is better than nothing and if insurance companies face more regulation and there is at least some sort of fallback to get more people insured, it is progress. But, this whole thing is going to end up costing more for marginal gains in the end.

Any chance we can float all the living Senators from Maine, save Bill Cohen, on an iceberg into the Arctic Sea?

Mitchell, Collins, & Snowe need to be put out. Dissemblers & egotists, each one. F' 'em.

I really enjoyed that speech. I was glued for most of it.

As for this,



Most of what he's talking about has to do with differential pricing, ie discounts for the healthy. But discounting for the healthy is exactly the same thing as raising rates on the unlealthy, and therein for me lies the rub. Speaking as someone who is an insurer's wet dream (haven't seen a doctor since getting my shots for undergrad, unless you count being sent to the ER in that attack in February), I should be standing up and railing against proposals that would take away my healthy discounts, I guess. But when you look at it phrased the other way, it's the underlying problem with the system as it is today: some people just cost more to insure. If you make them pay for what they cost, they could never pay it. It only works when you flatten it out. Sucks, but I don't see how else you can do it and keep things solvent. I have to pay more than I use.

And single payer would resolve most of the issues in your analysis. Or stopping fee-for-service and having health care professionals on Salary (ala Mayo Clinic) would resolve the "expensive" vs. "cheap" humans.

It was Obama's best speech; better than any campaign speech and better than any speech as President. Something often overlooked is that the guy is still a work in progress... .if he makes a second term (and I would bet good money that he will) he could accomplish a more radical transformation of health care. Despite the MSM love affair with the crackpot Right, the demographics of the country are a tide too strong.

guy that sits behind me just suggested the "why don't we give all 300 million Americans $1 million a piece? it's a lot cheaper than $900 billion" solution...

That e-mail has been going around since the around the time TARP was laid out.

i thought it was a pretty awesome speech. i wish he had done it earlier in the health care debate, but i think that there is a strong likelihood of some reform at least, and maybe the only way to do it is incrementally.