I agree--it was very encouraging to hear Obama reiterate the thought process/philosoplphy along with the serious intent to put this into play.

I gotta feeling we are going to be pleasantly surprised by this new administration in many ways.

He educates AND inspires in ways not heretofore seen by many of us.

To successfully address the problem of skyrocketing health care costs will require addressing the epidemics of entirely preventable disease that afflict millions of Americans -- which are largely attributable to an unwholesome and unhealthy diet based on extreme overconsumption of meat and dairy products, as well as processed "industrial" foods (e.g. corn syrup).

To that end, "reforming" the USDA -- or, as Nicholas Kristof suggests in The New York Times, replacing the Department of Agriculture which serves the interests of giant agribusiness corporations with a "Department of Food" which serves the public interest in a safe, wholesome food supply -- is arguably more important than reforming the medical insurance or medical services delivery systems.

Obama has in the past spoken to the need for a "national food policy" with such goals. I hope he follows through on that.

Encourage indeed.
But it's not just Obama's priorities or probable policies that are exciting -- it's that he (and his team) know how to frame the debate in ways that "centrist" and even conservative voters, the Rethugs, and even the Village, will have to respect. The references to "small businesses" and to "some of the largest corporations... struggling to compete with foreign companies" -- what can Viguerie or Rove or Gingrich or McConnell say against that?
My only question is, why has it taken until now for a Democrat to learn to speak so strongly in such terms?
The Republicans have become masters at deceitfully co-opting progressive terminology to sell policies that are profoundly antithetical to progressive ideals. ("Clear Skies!" "Healthy Forests!" "No Child Left Behind!" And of course my very favorite -- we have to invade Iraq to free their women from oppression!)
Why do so few Democrats effectively use the terms of the right to tell the truth about what their policies will do?
Hopefully, under the tutelage of the Obama administration, they'll learn to do so.

Obama is making all the right moves. I am convinced that he is going to be known as a great President. Before and during the primaries I was hardcore for Hillary, but ever since then I have been very glad that he won. He is exactly what this country needs now and the agenda he is setting and the people he is picking to implement it are stunning. I believe that the group of people that still have reservations about him will grow smaller as his administration takes office and begins making positive changes. I think he has the ability to generate the level of support that Bush had right after 9/11 if he keeps doing what he says he will do and this economy turns around and we get out of Iraq and he pulls off his healthcare agenda. There will be some that there is simply no getting through to, but those people will look like crazies if he is successful.

Maybe it's just me, but rather than "Making sure everybody has insurance and, more important, good insurance" I'd rather see the goal as "Making sure everybody has health care and, more important, good health care."

Sorry, but "insurance" is NOT equal to "health care." In fact, it's very often an obstacle to health care.

I had no idea that health care costs are such a huge part of the bankruptcy problem.

Preventive care is critical, and food and nutrition essential obviously are a big part of this--but be clear that is only part of the huge problem with our health care problem.

Preventive care is not just about food either--it also includes things like access to MD's for birth control, mothers for pre-natal care, std education, vaccinations, routine check-ups and tests for everyone at designated ages and the like.

Access to affordable and quality care is the biggest problem IMO. But clearly food and nutrition play a central role in everyone's health.

Cal Gal beat me to it.

"Mr. Obama, noting that more than 45 million people have no health insurance..."

The president-elect is a liar.

http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/columns/guestcolumnists/The_truth_behind_the_Census_Bureaus_insurance_figure.html

Maybe it's just me, but rather than "Making sure everybody has insurance and, more important, good insurance" I'd rather see the goal as "Making sure everybody has health care and, more important, good health care."

Sorry, but "insurance" is NOT equal to "health care." In fact, it's very often an obstacle to health care.

Insurance that is an obstacle to health care would, IMO, be the definition of bad insurance. Access to good insurance I would think would be access to insurance which provides access to good health care.

Though I agree, I'd prefer it phrased the way you prefer to make that clear.

Cal Gal, @14:06, is right on target; if we could cut out the middleman (insurance) or, at the very least, limit his scope of action, we'd have a heck of a lot of money left for health *care*.

About freakin' time! Health care costs are a HUGE part of our economic problem and getting worse at a very fast rate.

Health care costs are crippling American companies (such as the Big Three) and the middle class. Most bankruptcies are caused by health emergencies with families THAT HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE.

Encouraged indeed. None of this is going anywhere until Sen. Reid grows some balls or the Democratic majority in the Senate changes the rules to stop those southern wankers from obstructing every piece of Obama legislation that comes along. That's the Republican game plan and unfortunately McConnell's a lot shrewder than our guy Reid.