Obama Looks To Heavens (For Health Reform Inspiration)
The debate over health reform, most days, concerns earthly things, like spreadsheets, CBO projections, medicare reimbursements rates, and health insurance qualifications. It's a tough one to win politically, because not just because it is so boring and complicated, but also because it's complexity makes misrepresentation easier. So Obama spent much of Wednesday taking a new tact in his fight for health reform: He reached for the stars.
In a conference call with faith leaders, organized through a largely progressive umbrella group, 40 Days For Health Reform, Obama spoke of the legislation that has bogged down in Congress as if it were a message from above. The president described the need to tackle health reform as a "moral conviction" that "no one in America should be denied basic health care because he or she lacks health insurance." He paraphrased Genesis, saying that reform would address "what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation that we look out for one another, that I am my brother's keeper and I am my sister's keeper." He said reform was about the fight to "promote justice" and called the current debate a "battle between hope and fear." For some opponents, he had a biblical condemnation, saying there were those who were "frankly bearing false witness" about the facts of health reform. (Look to Facebook for Sarah Palin's response.)
As soon as he was finished, the moderator of the call told participants, "God has given us a spirit of love, justice and action. Let's put it to work."
Earlier in the morning, Obama had participated in a similar call with rabbis around the country. Though that call was not open to the public, some quotes have been relayed, via Twitter of course, to the public. According to Jack Moline, a participant, Obama said, "I am going to need your help in accomplishing necessary reform" and "We are God's partners in matters of life and death."(It is not clear from the Twitter entry if either are exact quotes from the president.)
Though the language of both addresses was targeted to niche clerical audiences, the broader strategic vision--connecting the earthly health care fight to heavenly ideals and principles--is likely to be repeated in the coming weeks. Next week, Obama will be mostly off the air, and out of sight, vacationing with his family on Martha's Vineyard. But when he returns the White House is sure to come out swinging against opponents, making the case that there is something larger at stake than just bending deficit curves and expanding coverage saturation.
-
1
Hopefully God will explain to him, and other democrats, why he gave them a majority in every branch of gov't, and how that can be useful in doing what they want to do.
-
2
I think this is a good strategy. It certainly would, or at least should, give far-right alleged Christians a moment's pause. Those who would use their Christianity as a fall-back for all sorts of political agendas will be forced to look at the health-care reform issue from a Christian perspective, one now already framed around compassion, assisting those in need and essentially in keeping with Christian values. It would be difficult to rebut health-care initiatives on moral/ethical grounds. This is not to say that framing the debate in this manner will change the outcome of reform, but it may soften some of the rhetoric coming from the religious right.
-
3
"God has given us a spirit of love, justice and action. Let's put it to work."
.
Awesome.
.
So does that mean I will soon be able purchase meaningful health insurance at affordable rates from an insurer that won't have a problem paying claims, even though I would still be able to get my horrible, kafka-esque insurance from my employer, and my family makes well over $89k a year?-
3.1
Probably not, Stuart that would require more of a direct miracle in the form of stone tablets and burning bushes on the Senate floor.
-
-
4
This strategy is worth a try. Then again, would Jesus have asked for anyone's health insurance card before making them see or walk again? But I digress, as usual.
-
5
Yes, I too have noticed how when they interview a lot of these anti-health care reform demonstrators they later self-identify themselves as being "real Americans and Christians" or some such. I've been waiting for someone to ask them exactly how much they thought Jesus was charging to heal the sick. Or if Jesus believed in denying coverage to someone who was unemployed.
-
6
From the WaPo Perlstein worth reading:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/08/14/DI2009081402554.html
"You can't 'demand' that people be more logical. Emotion is part of the human animal. What I would have liked to have seen, as an advocate of healthcare reform, is for Obama and the rhetoric to COMBINE rational appeals with emotional ones--like FDR and and Truman and LBJ did so effectively in their own attempts to pass progressive legislation. They roused people in their lizard-brains, too, just for progressive ends. Read a book about the 1948 presidential election--Truman made arguments in a very blunt, emotional style...
Somewhere along the line Democrats lost a sense of their natural power base--which is the fact that their ideas are economically beneficial to the vast majority. Acknowledging this fact became 'demagoguery.' Conservatives convinced them it was 'class warfare.' They became afraid of their simplest and most powerful message. All the other timidity follows from that."
-
7
"taking a new tact"
.
Ugh. It's tack as in tacking the sails on a ship to, you know, change direction.
.
Scherer's querulous misapplication of Christian discourse (followed by "Look to Facebook for Sarah Palin's response"!, snak snark snark) is not a promising development. It's also not worth commenting on further.
.
thx bye! -
8
It's a tough one to win politically, because not just because it is so boring and complicated, but also because it's complexity makes misrepresentation easier.
~
Besides the egregious overuse of the word (3 times in one sentence), you've also misused it, as well. Might want to take a second peek at this one, MS. -
9
[...] here to read the rest: Obama Reaches Out To Faith Leaders On Health Reform - Swampland … Tags: health-reform, jesus, photos, politics, swampland, twitter, Uncategorized, [...]
-
10
Republicans complaining about separation of church and state in 3..2..1...
And Friar Tuck is right about "tack" instead of "tact."
-
11
Tact is what we use when we want to gently point out someone's error without needlessly insulting him. I guess under the circumstances that would also be a different tack....
-
12
Mabe somewhere a gen-X'er decided that instead of refering to a sailing direction, tact was short for "tactic"
Stranger things have happened.-
12.1
Not inconceivable.
-
12.2
But the sailors anticipate and parry.....
.
http://www.tacktick.com/page.home
-
-
13
This is priceless. There are so many comedy routines in this it is hard to know where to start:
1) Rev Wright will head the new Public Option and counting the chickens coming home to roost.
2) The ACLU file a friend of the court brief for the suit against the adminstration for the separation of church and state.
3) Having libs talk about moral imperatives is like having Bill Clinton give abstinence tips
4) A moral stand in a bill that will use tax payer funds to pay for the killing of the most defenseless, the unborn.
You guys crack me up
-
13.1
"3) Having libs talk about moral imperatives is like having Bill Clinton give abstinence tips"
Let me guess why, because all liberals are evil?
I would have thought that anyone capable of reading the writings of Kant, and who is not mute, would be capable of talking about moral imperatives.
-
13.2
Freepie is of course an adherent of the Church of Reagan whose two cenral tenets are 'Government is incapable of good' and 'Corporations are incapable of evil." The fact that both of these assertions are empirically false is of no import. One must have faith!
-
13.3
freeinpa:
.
Having libs talk about moral imperatives is like having Bill Clinton give abstinence tips
.
Why would you say that? -
13.4
Derek freeinpa though Kant was a typo cor can't. You might want to be a little less ambitious and type slowly when addressing freeinpa
-
13.5
Thanks for the heads up Dee. I guess I won't ask him if he thinks synthetic a priori statements are possible.
-
13.6
You guys are the gift that keeps giving:
Derek Sorry you thought wrong. Reading doesn't mean understanding.
Paul I look forward to the publishing of your empirical evidence to support your assertion.
stuartzechman: IF you truly ask that you will never understand
Dee in Columbi…Type slowly Dee? Do you move your lips when you type?
For all you smartass remarks nobody touched number 4. I am sure with all your alleged arrogant superior intellect you can respond to it.
-
13.7
right on
-
13.8
"Derek Sorry you thought wrong. Reading doesn't mean understanding."
.
What part of Kant's moral imperative concept do you think an evil liberal like myself is incapable of understanding and why?
-
-
14
freepie
~
Ignoring your first three inane items, I must say that health-care reform, on principle, is most certainly an ethical/moral issue; one in which assisting the least among us stands as the paramount concern. Are the latest legislative schemes showing fidelity to this lofty ideal? No. This new angle on the debate was not aimed at any particular bill, so far as I can tell, but the general ideas behind reform of the health-care industry. In that regard, Obama was spot on.-
14.1
I have no problem with assisting the least among us. How that translates into the nightmare of a bill from the House or single payer system to reform a huge portion of our economy defies reason..
Desperation is upon the libs. The attempts so far have been absolute failures so they will stoop to using a moral aspect with religion. A group that libs time and time again have show nothing but contempt. By their very act of attempting shows once again libs have no moral compass only grasping for power.
-
-
15
If only Obama could look to the media to set things straight and educate Americans on health care reform. What is really in the bill and how it is likely to impact the individual citizen and dispelling myths of what is really not in the bill but is instead bullsh*t. I
n reality what he has is a media that is much more interested in reporting the drama. So, maybe there is a better chance of Obama finding the burning bush.
-
15.1
Gunny, did you see the incredulous performance of Chuck Todd yesterday when he questioned why so many Americans believed in the myths, rumors and down right lies depicted by the polling results? I'm just saying, when the chief communication medium of the country asks where the public is getting erroneous information and it never occurs to him that he is responsible for getting them the correct information, you know it's time to just grab a beer or a six pack, put your feet up and say WTF before you chug.
-
15.2
First trick would be to get Obama to fess up as to what health care reform is and how he pays for it. See how many lies come from that one.
-
-
16
1. Why isn't Amy Sullivan covering this?
.
2. (Look to Facebook for Sarah Palin's response.)
.
Why would I be interested in what a known lying, quitting, incompetent, fundamentalist moron has to say on the matter? Seems like she'd be the worst advisor imaginable on spiritual matters.
.
3) I wonder if any of the religious folk asked themselves why Obama was dealing with the money changers in secret just a few months earlier.-
16.1
All good points.
-
-
17
…was Sarah Palin's witch doctor in that conference call?
-
18
It is against the law to mix religion and politics. If any religion lobbies for any political cause, they must forfeit their "tax free status". Let's see that enforced. Obama is losing the battle and can't accept defeat. He will do ANYTHING to win what he wants - regardless of what the people want or what is best for us as a nation.
-
18.1
Incorrect. The Constitution forbids Congress from passing any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. What it does not suggest, either enumerated or implied, is that there is to be no interaction between government and religion. Government consists of individuals, many of whom are informed by their religious convictions. It is impossible to wholly severe the individual from what defines him/her. Furthermore, the Constitution only explicitly mentions Congress. While this has been interpreted as being applicable to government at large, it is certainly within reason to suggest that a strict interpretation of this clause speaks in no way to legislative or executive religious influence, or even pontification for that matter. Also, the precise phrasing, e.g. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, leaves a vast realm of murkiness. Finally, the directness of the unconstitutionality of prohibiting the free exercise of allows for ample individuality in expression, including the President of the Unites States, or any other member of government, either individually or collectively.
-
-
19
OBAMA: "HEALTH CARE REFORM WILL CREATE NEW JOBS!!!"... stick with that message!!
-
19.1
and a Prius in every driveway and tofu in every kitchen.
Americans are still waiting for all the jobs from the porkulus plan.
And of course the jobs created will be government jobs- Can't wait for those town hall meetings
-
-
20
It's always sad to see an appeal to irrationality—i.e., religion—even though one must face the hard truth that most Americans are religious and therefore irrational. But what's interesting is the rage and intolerance that so often characterizes the reaction of conservatives and/or Obama's opponents. They seem to lose self-control and act—whether in person or in writing—like young children having tantrums. Post 13 from 'freeinpa' is an example. Apparently the capacity to reason was lost or never was learned.
40 million Americans have no health insurance. Two- thirds of Americans are overweight or obese. It would be interesting to know what percentage of persons opposed to universal coverage are overweight. Would those opponents like to see all insurance eliminated for overweight persons? That would certainly lower health insurance costs—private or public—for those of us who are not overweight.
Something has got to be done, and it's irrational that what so many other nations do well—offer medical coverage to all their citizens—America still denies to 15% of its population.
Or maybe it's not irrational after all. Everyone should see The Onion's "news article" yesterday entitled, "Congress Deadlocked Over How Not to Provide Health Care."
-
21
Forget the heavens this is actually interesting.
"The White House and Senate Democratic leaders, seeing little chance of bipartisan support for their health-care overhaul, are considering a strategy shift that would break the legislation into two parts and pass the most expensive provisions solely with Democratic votes."
-
21.1
Oh Please please let them do it
-
-
22
Am I the first person to think Freepers is Spob-redux? Correct me if I'm wrong but that cretin's been MIA of late.
-
22.1
In this group you could have stopped after "Am I the first person to think".
No idea who Spob is but he no doubt tired of you bunch of arrogant, pompous, condescending self congratulating nimrods who have no tolerance for any opinion other than your own. Your thought process goes right to name calling. You are the internet version of the people at the town hall meetings you propose to detest.
-
22.2
Uh-oh...
-
22.3
No need for "uh ohs" N-R. While it is entertaining to curse like a sailor, I can't summon the energy to ridicule Spob 2.0 (i.e. feed the trolls). And I'm uncertain if I could dumb down my remarks sufficiently so 'it' could grasp them. Actually, in his defense, I think Spob was a cut above this wanker.
~
Now, for moderate and educated conservatives like yourself I'm always up to the challenge, just eagerly awaiting the opportunity...
~
But when these jokers all leave the cool shadows of their rocks simultaneously, I feel like I've inadvertantly stumbled into a NAMBLA convention. -
22.4
Exiled
As you can see jcapan was kind enough to prove my point and I doubt if his arrogance let him even see it.
Priceless!
-
22.5
JC
~
...just eagerly awaiting the opportunity...
Not to be contradictory, but I thought your views were antithetical to the notion of inter-ideological discussions, if you will. Correct me if I am wrong, or if you have evolved, however, I was under the impression I had been banished from your discourse for reasons of incorruptibility, *snark, er immutability. Seriously, and I'll be ecstatic if this is no longer the case, however, was it not your intention to solely engage progressives or center-left fence-sitters? I can understand why, it's much more productive than comatose dialogue with an ideologue such as myself. On the other hand, our discourse can be so much more colorful! In all truthfulness, I've missed our hearty chats, JC. Good to have you back. Graham Greene has taken over my life. Much more to come on that later. -
22.6
N-R, on certain issues, I stand by my [center-left] parameters. However, given your libertarian bent, you are at times more closely aligned with my positions than moderate dems. How many centrist dems want to withdraw the empire (like Ron Paul), for ex? So, where I see openings, I'll engage. On issues where the divide is too broad, I stand by my contention that engagement is not productive.
~
Funny, Greene was first brought to my attn. by a close friend who was both deeply religious and conservative, winding up in seminary since we knew each other from what I've heard. The other book he gave me was by Walker Percy, who made no lasting impression on me. But he's another Catholic writer you may want to check out. -
22.7
Percy. Hmm, I'm unfamiliar. I will give him the opportunity to impress, though. In any case, 5am comes despicably too soon. Need some shut-eye now. We'll pick this up soon, whenever we may get a less monotonous thread. Ciao a tutti.
-
-
23
It's always a shame to see appeals to irrationality—i.e., religion—though it's understandable since three-quarters of Americans are religious and therefore irrational. What is interesting, though, is the exaggerated irrationality of self-named and so-called “conservatives” who seem to lose self-control when they consider proposals from the center or the left. Post 13 from ‘freeinpa' seems to be an example. Has he or she lost the ability to discourse rationally, or was it never learned in first place?
Consider that 40 million Americans have no health coverage, whereas many other nations—Canada's a good example—offer universal, affordable coverage. Maybe the solution, since two-thirds of Americans are overweight, is for private insurers to deny coverage to persons who are overweight. (How would the persons who are overweight and opposed to universal coverage feel about losing their insurance?) Costs for the rest of us who aren't overweight would fall rapidly, and perhaps there would be enough left over to insure those who aren't now insured, or at least the non-overweight ones.
How can persons be so wildly irrationally opposed to offering coverage to everyone? The utter madness of Sarah Palin's accusation of “Death Panels” is truly frightening: can you imagine that lying nutcase was actually a candidate for Vice President!? We've got to get to civilized, rational dialogue about what is an intolerable situation.
-
23.1
Yes, you said that already. And might I say, what a narrowed, arrogant and dismissive perspective. Given that the majority of the world's people subscribe to some religious faith, and therefore the majority of the world is irrational according to you, that must put you among the 'enlightened' few. That's awfully self-aggrandizing, wouldn't you agree.
-
23.2
Other than your unprovoked and undeserved assault on the faithful, I agree with what you have said. It's a shame that it had to come under the pretext of an anti-religion diatribe. Surely that peice of inane insight into your mind could have been excluded.
-
23.3
Yes it is irrational to disagree with you. You state it so it must be. Our Founding Fathers must have been extremely irrational since the basis and foundation of this country was religious beliefs.
I would rather be with those irrational folks that with the likes of you.
Now you want to punish the overweight. Here is a test for you. Skin cancer is another expensive health care problem. No coverage for the beach goers? Or how about AIDS which is an enormous cost to the health care system should. The overwhelming majority is transmitted through drug addiction an homosexuality. Should they be denied coverage until they are de-toxed or gone straight?
Rational. No and the number 40 million includes young folks who are healthy and do not want healthcare. Forcing people to do things they don't want to do is the specialty of libs and that's not rational either.
And the dirty little secret that keeps hidden here is nobody mentions tort reform in the high cost of health care. How rational is that?
-
-
24
Not that freep is worth the time but just for yucks:
Good Government:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov
.
Evil Corporation:
http://www.rentacenter.comCase Closed!
-
24.1
Case closed! Whew judge, jury, prosecuting attorney and defense counsel. What a burden for you.
Good Corporation: Starbucks
Bad Government:http://www.whitehouse.gov/our_government/federal_agencies_and_commissions/
Quite amusing you chose the weather center as good government
-
24.2
I see that logic isn't your forte. When the premise is 'All government is bad, all corporations are good, a single counterexample is all that's required to kill the entire discussion.
This:
http://www.goes.noaa.gov/browsh.html
is a fine reason to be grateful for a government service.
-
-
25
Compare the Savings for Yourself!
See how Rent-A-Center Financial Services stacks up
against late fees and charges you might otherwise face:Signature Loan
AmountFeeTOTAL†
$150.00 $30.00 $180.00Bounced Check
AmountFeeTOTAL
$150.00 $54.04 $204.04Unpaid Utility Bill
AmountFeeTOTAL
$150.00 $46.16 $196.1614-day single payment loan APR of 521.43%
-
25.1
I suggest you contact Schmuck Schumer who stopped limits on fees and interest rates for consumers. How else would Schmuck get his money
-
25.2
So our freeper is now arguing that government is doing an inadequate job of regulating private transactions....
-
25.3
Let it go Paul. This one has zero sense of irony.
-
- michaelscherer Gibbs says Desiree Rogers will not testify tomorrow before House on WH gatecrashers. - 30 minutes ago
- michaelscherer Always a bad sign when you (NBC) have to preface every news report (Salahi) with big disclaimers that the parent company is not a factor. - 4 hours ago
- michaelscherer Ah.... Richard Wolffe. - 17 hours ago
Most Popular »
- "Personal Sins Should Not Require Press Releases"
- Congress's Tepid Reaction to Obama's Afghanistan Plan
- Tiger Speaks
- State Dinner, Uh, Fashion
- The 'Alice' Interview: A Very Different Brand of Wonderland
- Gleeks and Shrieks: Fox Unveils Midseason, Glee Gone Until April
- White House Hypocritical Attack on Politico
- The Dreaded X
- First Look: 'Lovely Bones' and Peter Jackson's Virtuoso Vistas
- False Economy: Think You're Saving Money? Think Again
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Italian Town Dreams of a White (No Foreigners) Christmas
- Rachel Uchitel: Tiger Woods' Alleged Affair Connection
- Europe's Secret Nuclear Weapons: What Should NATO Do?
- Can Attack Dogs Be Rehabilitated?
- Why Fritz Henderson Resigned as GM's CEO
- Ireland: Lack of New Catholic Priests Spurs Campaign
- Study: Loneliness Can Be Contagious
- Could White House Party Crashers the Salahis Go to Jail?
- The End of the 2000s: Goodbye to a Decade from Hell
Quotes of the Day »
RSS