OBAMARAMA

Little Molly reminds us that Sen. Obama’s support is by no means limited to those who can vote.  Or tie their shoes.

Bloomberg News reports today on the details of Sen. Obama’s universal health care plan, which he is set to unveil this afternoon in a speech at the University of Iowa.

He’s received his fair share of flack for lacking a comprehensive proposal on the issue — despite the fact that until last week the only candidate in either party to lay out a health care plan was John Edwards — but all that nonsense stops now. The details are on the table.

Here’s how Bloomberg reports them:

Obama, 45, an Illinois senator, would increase preventive screening, institute an electronic health records system, allow Medicare to bulk-buy prescription drugs, and provide reinsurance for catastrophic coverage — steps Obama said could save as much as $100 billion a year in health-care costs.

For those who still couldn’t afford coverage, Obama would offer subsidized health insurance, expand government Medicaid and children’s plans and overhaul the insurance market, according to excerpts of a speech he’s expected to give today at the University of Iowa in Iowa City.

“To help pay for this, we will ask all but the smallest businesses who don’t make a meaningful contribution today to the health coverage of their employees to do so by supporting this new plan,” Obama will tell supporters. “And we will allow the temporary Bush tax cut for the wealthiest Americans to expire.”

…In order to cut costs, Obama would spend $10 billion over five years to move health records from a paper system to an electronic one… Obama also supports efforts in Congress to allow Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices directly — a move some Democrats say could save as much as $30 billion annually.

…Obama also plans to increase competition among health insurance providers while creating a so-called National Health Insurance Exchange to act as an industry watchdog to help keep costs down. These strategies would reduce premiums for every U.S. household by $2,500, according to the text of his speech.

“In the end, coverage without cost containment will only shift our burdens, not relieve them,” Obama is expected to say. “So we will take steps to remove the waste and inefficiency from the system so we can bring down costs and improve the quality of our care.”

…Obama would also allow children to remain on their parents’ health insurance until the age of 25, and offer individuals who can’t afford private insurance access to a government plan that would be based on the federal employee system. He didn’t elaborate on how people would qualify for such a plan.

“It’s time to bring together businesses, the medical community, and members of both parties around a comprehensive solution to this crisis,” Obama will say. “It’s time to let the drug and insurance industries know that while they’ll get a seat at the table, they don’t get to buy every chair.”

Promises to be an important and exciting speech. We’ll add video when it becomes available.

You can click here to read all “Here’s the Beef” posts, which highlight Sen. Obama’s substantive policy proposals.

UPDATE: As promised:

A taste: “So your girlfriend rolls a fatty / Wants the mayor of Manhatty / But Rudy, he ain’t fit to ride in my Caddy / My Democratties don’t — want — jack — unless you vote — Ba-rack.”

And now, the absurd glory that is “Baby Vote Barack”:

Hilarious. And, as usual, on point:

The Associated Press reports today on a poll that asked Americans which presidential candidate “they would most like to chat with at a Memorial Day picnic.”

No surprises here:

Notably, the article also points out that “more women overall chose Obama over Clinton.”

Leading the nation is no picnic, of course. But in a society where voters want to like their leaders on a personal level, results like this are exactly what you want to see.

Michelle Obama had a great appearance on Good Morning America yesterday.  Have a look:

Following up on a New York Times article that exposed telemarketing firms that prey on older Americans, Sen. Obama sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission “to express my concern that the Federal Trade Commission is not doing more to deter such schemes and to protect elderly consumers from abusive and fraudulent telemarketing practices.”

This Direct Marketing News article has more:

In his May 21 letter, Mr. Obama said, “yesterday, the New York Times published an investigation into telemarketing fraud schemes that exploit vulnerable American seniors, often robbing them of their dignity, their good credit, and even the life savings and financial resources they rely on to pay for food or medication. I am writing to express my concern that the Federal Trade Commission is not doing more to deter such schemes and to protect elderly consumers from abusive and fraudulent telemarketing practices.”

…Mr. Obama asked the FTC to answer six questions, including “what, if anything, is the FTC doing to assess and address the particular consumer protection challenges faced by seniors or other groups of American consumers who may be especially vulnerable to abuse?” and “In particular, what is the FTC doing to regulate the sale of telemarketing databases to companies that are under investigation or have been prosecuted for fraud?”

He asked for a response by June 8, 2007.

“We have a very long, 25 year-plus record fighting against telemarketing fraud, and we are looking forward to providing all of that information to the Senator,” said Eileen Harrington, deputy director of the bureau of consumer protection at the FTC.

The piece also quotes “a privacy and information policy consultant” who observes that “This issue involves telemarketing fraud along with cheating the elderly — two things that together make it a perfect issue for politicians.”

Normally I’d wait until Sunday, but this was just too absurd to pass up:

Dream On:

Sen. Clinton insists her position on war same as Obama’s

Saying Democrats are “united” in calling for a change in course in Iraq, Clinton brushed off comments by Obama that his opposition to the war in 2002 sets him apart from the former First Lady, who voted to authorize President Bush to use force in Iraq.

A humorous little clip from NBC’s deeply underrated comedy 30 Rock:

An AP article out today compares the diversity among the top staffers of the leading presidential candidates. Not surprisingly, the Republicans don’t fare so well:

According to the article, “The Obama campaign counts six minority staffers among its top 14 staff members, and six women within the same group.” It goes on to quote spokesman Bill Burton, who says that a diverse staff “helps to get a fuller sense of opinions and perspectives and ideas from a broad spectrum of individuals.”

And a new FOX News poll bears the headline “More Voters Believe Giuliani, McCain and Obama Say What They Believe,” noting that “46 percent think Obama says what he truly believes,” the largest percentage of any Democrat.

One of the most diverse campaigns AND the most honest? Not bad for a guy no one had heard of six months ago.

In an interview on Wednesday night, President Clinton once again tried to conflate his wife’s record on the war with that of Sen. Obama. As quoted by the Hotline:

CLINTON: Because in the beginning, there was this impression that he was the only one that was really against the president’s policy in Iraq, which I don’t think is accurate, but it nevertheless had some legs out there.

His voting record and Hillary’s are almost identical, I think, on all the relevant issues.

Asked about the comments yesterday, Sen. Obama didn’t mince words:

“I suppose that’s true if you leave out the fact that she authorized it, and supported it, and I said it was a bad idea,” said Obama. “That’s a fairly major difference.”

It begs the question: Can you smell what Barack is cooking?

Every time I hear the name “Frank Luntz,” I throw up in my mouth a little.

This is the man, after all, who made the Republicans understand that they could win policy debates simply by having the better message, regardless of how flawed their policies were. He coined phrases like “Death Tax,” “energy exploration” and “healthy forests,” to replace the unimaginative (if more precise) terms “Estate Tax,” “drilling” and “logging.” As Samantha Bee once put it, “Luntz has made a brilliant career spraying perfume on dog turds.”

In fairness, I don’t have such a visceral, intestinal reaction to Frank Luntz because he’s an idiot. To the contrary, the guy has been brutally successful, having reportedly once even sold a ketchup popsicle to an Eskimo wearing white gloves.

While we should lament the absence of substance in our debates, Luntz has helped political folks on both sides learn to appreciate the vital role communication plays in the process. Despite his sometimes questionable methodologies, Luntz understands better than anyone that you need to sell your ideas if you want them to be adopted.

So when he goes on Bill Maher and says Sen. Obama is well-positioned to win both the primary and the general election, I take heed. I still get a little nauseous, but it’s a nausea of joy. Have a look:

A CNN report on presidential candidates’ financial holdings — which notes that “Obama and his wife, Michelle, reported assets ranging from $457,000 to $1.14 million — far more modest than most of the other leading presidential candidates” — noted an interesting fact about the Obama’s portfolio:

The Obama campaign announced Wednesday that the couple this year transferred about $180,000 in assets they held in the Vanguard Wellington Fund to Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund after discovering that a small amount of the Vanguard Wellington Fund is invested in an oil-field services company active in Sudan.

This sort of socially-conscious investing and spending exemplifies how regular Americans can make a concrete difference on pressing global issues like the genocide in Darfur. It’s inspiring to see a major presidential candidate leading the way.

For more information about how you can have an impact in Darfur, check out the Save Darfur Coalition’s Divest for Darfur campaign website.

UPDATE: Tipster Stacy points us toward a Chicago Tribune article on the disclosures that labels Sen. Obama “The poor man among the top tier of presidential candidates,” adding, “It’s no wonder none of them wanted to disclose this information! Obama comes closest to the common man.”

“Obama proposes college loan plan,” declares the headline of Ohio University’s newspaper following a conversation about financial aid with Sen. Obama. The article backs it up:

Obama confronted the problem by announcing a proposal today to eliminate private student lenders from the loan process.

“By removing private lenders from the process and requiring that all federal student loans be provided by the federal government, we’ll save billions that we can use to make college more affordable,” he said.

Obama said his plan would have saved taxpayers nationwide roughly $6 billion this year alone.

…“We shouldn’t provide billions of taxpayer-funded giveaways to private banks when young people all across the country are trying to figure out how they can finance an affordable, accessible college education,” Obama said.

…At least 200,000 students were qualified to go to college but didn’t because of financial limitations, Obama said, citing tuition increases over the past five years of 11 percent at private universities and 35 percent at public institutions.

As someone on the verge of returning to school, this particular issue resonates with me. The subsidized federal student loans are a huge help to students, since the clock doesn’t start ticking (and hence interest doesn’t start accruing) until six months after you graduate. That gives you a chance to get your feet under you before your debt starts growing in leaps and bounds.

The often predatory practices of many private lenders mean students are immediately in the hole, accruing interest on their debt years before they’re in a position to begin paying it off.

Sen. Obama is making sense on this issue — which may well be an important part of his popularity among young people. As the article notes, “Obama said he noticed the college-aged generation taking a deeper interest in political issues and attributed it to issues such as college loans, climate change, federal debt and globalization.”