President Barack Obama delivers remarks on health care during a prime-time press conference from the East Room of the White House July 22, 2009, in Washington, DC. (AFP/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON (CNN) - President Obama said Wednesday he was unable to guarantee that health care reform won't change how Americans get medical treatment, but he said any changes would be necessary and positive.

In a nationally televised news conference dominated by the health care issue, Obama delivered lengthy statements in response to Republican attacks on proposals he favors.

He also attempted to ease the concerns of people left confused by the fierce debate in Washington.

He repeatedly emphasized that the spiraling costs of the current system would bankrupt the nation while denying coverage to millions more Americans.

Asked directly if he could guarantee that an overhauled health care system won't change how people receive treatment, Obama said no.

"The whole point of this is to try to encourage what works," Obama said, addressing concerns that reform would take away the ability of people to choose their doctors and treatment.

Watch Obama describe importance of "getting it right"

What's your reaction to Obama's health care speech? Tell us your thoughts.

15 years after their television debut, actors Harry Johnson and Louise Clark are back, reprising the roles that made them famous – or infamous depending on your political persuasion.

Better known as “Harry and Louise,” the duo sank the Clinton administration’s efforts to pass health care reform in the early 1990s, with a series of TV advertisements that claimed proposed changes would “force” Americans to pick from limited plans designed by “government bureaucrats.”

The ads, paid for by the health insurance industry, were considered controversial with threats such as, “If they choose; we lose.”

The proposed reform dubbed “HillaryCare” never got out of Congress and serious efforts for reform have not been proposed again – until now.

Cue Harry and Louise.

“Well, it looks like we may finally get health care reform,” Harry says in what looks like it might be the same kitchen table set they used 15 years ago. “It’s about time,” Louise responds, adding, “A little more cooperation, a little less politics and we can get the job done.”

That’s right, this time Harry and Louise are using a different script for a new pro-reform ad paid for by Families USA and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

Johnson and Clark were first tapped last year during the height of the 2008 election by the pro-reform groups for a new series of ads depicting the same characters. Ron Pollack, head of Families USA, re-introduced the fictional couple at a press conference last August and joked, “I did not mean any harm by saying they've gotten older; we all have. They actually are better looking and they’re a whole lot wiser.”

Johnson and Clark later explained the role reversal in a behind-the-scenes video of the making of the ‘08 ad. “Things are much more expensive than they used to be,” Harry said. “Both of us know people who are having problems because they don’t have adequate coverage or don’t have any coverage at all,” Louise added. “We both know more people now than 15 years ago.”

While the duo is still a part of the political lexicon, it seems both sides of the aisle are unaware of their political switch, with both President Obama and RNC Chair Michael Steele recently referencing the Harry and Louise of yesterday.

After all, is the sequel ever as good as the original?

President Obama is getting ready to push his health care reform plan in a prime time press conference tonight. He's hoping to win over the American people as well as members of Congress who are skeptical about the plan.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has been a very vocal critic of the president’s plan. He spoke to Kiran Chetry on CNN’s “American Morning” Wednesday.

Kiran Chetry: You're a physician as well and I'm sure that you have a lot of thoughts on this issue as we debate health care. You oppose President Obama's reform plan. You favor giving Americans control of their health care. Does it boil down to two different philosophies over who should get health care coverage? Do you believe not everyone can expect free or low cost health care?

Ron Paul: Yeah, I think there's a lot to that. But I come from the viewpoint that the most important thing we do is preserve the doctor/patient relationship, which we do not. For the past 30 years or so we've had a lot of government involved. We have veterans care, we have Medicare, we have Medicaid and we also have a lot of people getting private insurance. People having private insurance are not all that unhappy. So what are we doing now or at least Obama is proposing that we turn the people that have service on insurance and make them join the governmental programs that everybody is unhappy about.

So it doesn't make any sense. It's a total failure to run anything by a bureaucracy. It always costs more and the services are always less favorable. So for us to pursue government solutions to a problem the government created sort of reminds me of the T.A.R.P. bailouts. You know what we do financially. So medical bailouts by more government when government created our managed care system of 35 years will only make things much worse.

FULL POST

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/07/21/jindal.cnn.art.jpg caption="Governor Bobby Jindal says the House Democrats' health care proposal would put the government between doctors and their patients."]

Key House Democrats are being summoned to the White House today for some not so subtle arm-twisting on health care reform. President Obama's looking for every vote that he can get to push health care reform through Congress by the August recess. Republicans, though, are fighting him every step of the way.

Louisiana's Republican Governor Bobby Jindal has been a vocal critic of the president’s plan. He spoke to John Roberts on CNN’s “American Morning” Tuesday.

John Roberts: You penned a rather scathing editorial for Politico.com on the Democrats' health care proposals. But your state ranks dead last in the United Health Foundation survey of overall health. It also had the fourth highest Medicare cost per patient in the country from 1996 through 2006, according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Some people out there might be wondering if you're the best person to be criticizing the administration's plans for health care reform?

Bobby Jindal: Well John, a couple of things. We've actually got a very aggressive waiver in front of the federal government allowing us – asking them for permission to allow us to revamp our public health care programs to put more of an emphasis on outcomes. Louisiana's a great example of what's wrong with many of our government-run health care programs. You look at Medicare – the Dartmouth data shows that higher spending doesn't always correlate to better outcomes.

Here's my concern with the House Democratic proposal, what's being discussed. You know, they say that if you like your health care, you can keep it. But that's not what this plan does. They say they're going to control costs, but even their own budget office says their plan doesn't do it. They say they’re going to expand access. Look at what their plan really does: Increases the deficit by nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars. You’ve got a plan that in reality, their own budget office says, doesn't reduce costs. It increases taxes at a time that we may be in one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression. No economist thinks we should be increasing taxes right now on employers, on small businesses, on families that don't want to participate in this health care program.

And then finally, finally you've got a plan – the House Democratic plan – that puts the government in between doctors and their patients. That's no way to improve quality. And so, if they were actually doing what they said they were doing, that'd be one thing, but that's not what their plan does. At least you've got to give Senator Kennedy credit. In Newsweek this past week, he admitted that his ideal had been to have a single-payer, government-run health care system. I don't think that's the answer for our country. I think we should actually do what the rhetoric says. Let’s focus on reducing costs. Let’s focus on increasing quality. Let's not expand the government's role in running our health care.

FULL POST

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/07/21/pelosi.health.care.getty.art.jpg caption="Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) speaks during a news conference on the health care reform bill July 17, 2009 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC."]

In the 1938 film version of "The Adventures of Robin Hood", Prince John asks if there were "any objections to the new tax?" The reaction among the Saxons was to embrace Robin Hood as he and his Merry Men went about stealing from the rich to give to the poor.

As for that proposed tax on national health care, could this possibly be construed as a 2009 version of Robin Hood? Will the rich really be soaked to pay for a health care plan that disproportionately helps the poor?

Well, it may depend on what the definition of rich, is. What about $350,000?

The current House bill would tax families making $350,000 and up – and that has more than a few people very upset. Congressmen have gotten so much heat from some of their wealthier constituents that a large group of the legislators, all freshmen, made a beeline to the White House last Friday to express their concerns. Many of them were upset about the effect that the proposed tax would have on small businesses. Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Va., who led the group, happens to represent a congressional district that boasts some the wealthiest people in America.

• Watch: Robin Hood health care?

Even Nancy Pelosi, who didn't become speaker of the House by championing the cause OF the rich, seems to have gotten the message. Her office told CNN and Politico.com that she's considering changing the House's health care surcharge so it no longer affects the rich – only the really, REALLY rich. That would include families that make $1 million or more.

The speaker told Politico.com, "...you hear '$500,000 a year,' you think, 'My God, that's not me...'"

All of which leads to the question, does any of this really matter? Will taxing the rich, whatever your definition, provide enough to pay for expanded health care?

It turns out it might not matter, says University of Maryland business professor Peter Morici. He says there's not enough tax money to pay for all the president's proposals. "We simply can't reform health care," he says, "and do all the other domestic initiatives he wants to undertake by simply taxing the top 5% of the population." And restricting a health care tax to people who make $500,000 a year, which is less than 1% of all taxpayers, won't even come close to paying for the program.

President Obama sees it differently. He's looking at costs as well as revenues. On Monday the president said once again that huge savings can be made by streamlining health care and cutting unnecessary expenses. "The bill I sign must reflect my commitment and the commitment of Congress to slow the growth of health care costs over the long run… Let's fight our way through the politics of the moment. Let's pass reform by the end of this year."

What do you think? Tax the rich to pay for health care? How do you define "rich" in the U.S.?