Update: LATimes has complete transcript of the town hall meeting, with Q&A. Obama gave a quite long answer to the first question, which was in support of single payer. Perhaps that is why the initial report from the Green Bay Press Gazette was that he said single payer was socialized medicine and he does not support it. Based on this, the title has been changed from "Obama in Green Bay: Our Dem president called single payer "socialized medicine"!! Sacre bleu!!".

Alas, the speech is the usual Obama points about health insurance reform: His list of reasons for change lead inexorably to single payer, but he just can't do it. Won't do it. Would be "disruptive."

Complete transcript of first Q&A is below, but, essentially, Obama begins by discussing socialized medicine and, after a few sentences, says that single payer is not socialized medicine. Then he repeats his lament that since we have a different system in place, it's impossible to go with single payer. Altho' he has said in his answer that Medicare is an example of single payer!

The first title was based on this from the Green Bay Press Gazette, which lead its coverage of Obama's healthcare town hall meeting with discussion of the first question from the audience, which was from a single payer supporter:

After a member of the audience asked him if he supported a single-payer health plan, Obama said he does not support what is being called "socialized medicine."

"The majority of people still get their insurance through their employer, Obama said. "Rather than disrupt things, let them kee the health insurance they've got. There still is a role for private insurance."

For others, however, who can't get insurance privately should have an option for a public plan.

Having read the complete transcript, I misunderstood what the reporter was trying to say, which was, apparently, that some were calling single payer "socialized medicine." Apologies, folks!

I then wrote:

To me, that is huge. He's calling TR, FDR, Truman, LBJ proponents of socialism!

Coming from the foremost Lemon Socialist in our nation today, that's something.

So far, limited coverage available, but I'm still looking.

**Please add articles, commentaries, video links as you find them. Thnx!**

More from the Green Bay Press Gazette (Go Packers!):

...Obama promoted the creation of a federally regulated national exchange....[which] would allow people to compare and choose benefits and prices, both private and public plans. None of the plans would deny coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions....

He tried to bamboozle his listeners into thinking the "below-average health care costs" in Green Bay could be replicated elsewhere in the country, resulting in “quality out of fewer health care dollars.” Dear Mr. President, I'm sure someone has told you that Green Bay has a lower cost of living that, oh, the East and West Coasts? It's less expensive than Milwaukee, in the same state. This is not worthy of you, sir, or your speech writers.

From transcript of prepared remarks (T/U, candy):

For the government, the growing cost of Medicare and Medicaid is one of the biggest threats to our federal deficit. Bigger than Social Security. Bigger than all the investments we’ve made so far. So if you’re worried about spending and you’re worried about deficits, you need to be worried about the cost of health care.

Uh, what about all these wars? Military costs?

We have the most expensive health care system in the world. We spend almost 50% more per person on health care than the next most costly nation. But here’s the thing, Green Bay: we’re not any healthier for it. We don’t necessarily have better outcomes. Even within our own country, a lot of the places where we spend less on health care actually have higher quality than places where we spend more. Right here in Green Bay, you get more quality out of fewer health care dollars than many other communities across the country.

And yet, across the country, spending on health care goes up and up and up – day after day, year after year.

Now, covering more Americans will obviously cost a good deal of money at a time where we don’t have extra to spend. That’s why I have already promised that reform will not add to our deficit over the next ten years. To make that happen, we have already identified hundreds of billions worth of savings in our budget – savings that will come from steps like reducing Medicare overpayments to insurance companies and rooting out waste, fraud and abuse in both Medicare and Medicaid. I will be outlining hundreds of billions more in savings in the days to come. And I’ll be honest – even with these savings, reform will require additional sources of revenue. That’s why I’ve proposed that we scale back how much the highest-income Americans can deduct on their taxes back to the rate from the Reagan years – and use that money to help finance health care. (My emphasis)

DailyKos liveblog notes that Obama explained difference between socialized medicine (gov't owned, gov't employes medical personnel) as opposed to single payer (gov't pays, medical providers are private). Begins with section about first questioner, Paulette:

She posed her question very well. (22+ / 0-)
I appreciate how he is pointing out the difference between "socialized medicine" and single payer. A useful soundbite, if our media chooses to use it.

by Jennifer Clare on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 01:30:13 PM EDT

Looks like GB Gazette reporter may have made mistake or report was truncated in some way. I will update when I'm sure of what Obama said.

AP coverage stated:

Obama has detailed few specifics that he is for and against, and did not break any new ground on Thursday. He said he won't run roughshod over Congress with a "my way or the highway" approach and is "happy to steal other people's ideas."

LATimes complete transcript, with excerpt of first Q&A about single payer here:

Q Good afternoon, Mr. President. I am Paulette Garren (phonetic). As a self-employed individual, I spend approximately $8,000 annually on my health insurance premium, and it's a $2,000 deductible -- no dental, no vision, no prescription coverage. As my business is declining because of the economy we have, I am now in a situation where I'm taking savings to help pay for food and housing, because I also still don't want to lose my health insurance.

And I will be frank and honest with you: I am a supporter of a single-payer system over any other system, because I do -- (applause) -- thank you -- I do believe that it will meet your three criteria and be the most economically feasible plan that we have.

When you were speaking, you mentioned that if we go with a public and a private option, that the public option will keep the private insurers honest. My concern is that we will end up in a situation like we have with Medicare, where Medicare is basically a subsidy of private insurance companies, because folks are able to buy Medicare Advantage.

It seems to me that we would take that same scenario and increase it outward for the entire country. And that is why I still support single payer, and I know that at one point you did. And I would ask that it still be on the table for consideration, and thank you so much for your time. (Applause.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you for the great question.

Let me just talk about some of the different options that are out there, because sometimes there's been confusion in the press and the public, and people use, you know, politics in talking about the issue. There are some folks who say, "socialized medicine."

You hear that all the time, "socialized medicine." Well, socialized medicine would mean that the government would basically run all of health care. They would hire the doctors, they would run the hospitals. They would just run the whole thing. Great Britain has a system of socialized medicine.

Nobody is talking about doing that, all right? So when you hear people saying, "socialized medicine," understand I don't know anybody in Washington who is proposing that, certainly not me.

Socialized medicine is different from a single-payer plan. Now, the way a single-payer plan works is that you still have private doctors, private hospitals, providers, et cetera, but everything is reimbursed through a single payer; usually, the government. So Medicare would be an example of a single-payer plan. Doctors don't work for Medicare, but Medicare reimburses for services that are provided to seniors who are on Medicare.

There have been proposals to have, essentially, Medicare for all, a single-payer plan for all Americans, and -- that person likes it. (Laughter.) And there are some appealing things to a single-payer plan, and there are some countries where that's worked very well.

Here is the thing: We're not starting from scratch. We've already got -- because of all kinds of historical reasons, we have primarily an employer-based system that uses private insurers alongside a Medicare plan for people above a certain age; and then you've got Medicaid for folks who are very poor and don't have access to health care. So we've got sort of a patchwork system.

And it was my belief and continues to be my belief that whatever we might do if we were just starting from scratch, that it was important in order to get it done politically, but also to minimize disruptions to families that we start with what we have, as opposed to try to completely scrap the system and start all over again.

And so what my attitude was if you've got an employer-based system -- and a lot of people still get their health insurance through their jobs -- obviously, you're self-employed, so there's a different category, but the majority of people still get their health insurance through their employer.

Rather than completely disrupt things for them, my attitude is let them keep the health insurance that they've got, the doctors that they have -- there's still a role for private insurance -- but number one, let's have insurance reform so that you can't eliminate people for preexisting conditions -- (applause) -- so that there's none of the cherry picking that's going on to try to just get the healthiest people insured and get rid of the sick people. So you've got to set up some rules for how insurance companies operate.

Number two, that for people who are self-employed, for small businesses, for others, they should have an option that they can go to if they can't get insurance through the private marketplace. That's why I've said that I think a public option would make sense. What that then does is it gives people a choice. If they're happy with what they've got, if they're employed by somebody who provides them with good health care, you can keep it, you don't have to do anything. But if you don't have health insurance, then you have an option available to you.

Now, how this debate is evolving in Washington, unfortunately sometimes kind of falls into the usual politic. So what you've heard is some folks on the other side saying, "I'm opposed to a public option because that's going to lead to government running your health care system." Now, I don't know how clearly I can say this, but let me try to repeat it:

If you've got health insurance that you're happy with through the private sector, then we're not going to force you to do anything. All we're saying is for the 46 million people who don't have health insurance, or for people who've got health insurance, like you, who are self-employed but the premiums and the deductibles are so high that you almost never get prevention services -- you've put off going to a doctor until you're really sick because of the out-of-pocket expenses -- let's change some of those incentives so that we get more people getting prevention, more people getting health care to keep them healthy, as opposed to just treating them when they get sick.

And I think that we can come up with a sensible, common sense way that's not disruptive, that still has room for insurance companies and the private sector, but that does not put people in the position where they are potentially bankrupt every time they get sick.

Now, how this debate is going to evolve over the next eight weeks -- I'm very open-minded. And if people can show me, here's a good idea and here's how we can get it done and it's not something I've thought of -- I'm happy to steal people's ideas. (Laughter.) I'm not ideologically driven one way or another about it. (Applause.)

The one thing that I do think is critically important, though, is for self-employed people -- because there are a lot of self-employed people here and a lot of small business people -- they don't have the ability to pool their health insurance risk. And what that means is part of the reason that -- typically if you work for a big company, you get a better deal on health insurance than if you're just working for a small company is because there's a bigger pool.

And that means that -- each of us have a certain risk of getting sick, but if that's spread around, everybody's premiums can be lowered because the total risk for everybody is somewhat lower.

If you're self-employed, you don't have access to that same pool. And part of what we have to do -- and that's where a public plan potentially comes in, or at least some mechanism to allow you to join a big pool. That will help drive down your costs immediately: your out-of-pocket costs for premiums, lower your deductibles.

And what I'd like to see, as I said, is that every plan includes not only prohibitions against discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, but also every plan should have incentives for people to use preventive services and wellness programs so that they can stay healthier.

You are somebody who I think could be directly impacted and directly helped if Congress gets this thing done and gets it on my desk, I hope, by sometime in October of this year. (Applause.)

Okay, it's a guy's turn. It's a guy's turn. This gentleman in the suit.