Tweet
From the SOTU:
But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.
I’ll give it to you in two words, Mr. President: Public. Option.
Nothing that’s been discussed will do more to force the insurance industry to face meaningful competition which in turn will lower premiums. Nothing that’s been discussed will do more to force the insurance industry to fight for new clients by offering better coverage with fewer abuses. Nothing.
There was a reason the public option was in the Democratic party platform that was adopted at the same Denver convention that nominated you as the party’s candidate for the presidency. You might dig that platform out and give it a look.
40 Comments
Would have been a barn burning game “changer” had he said it peterr. Lordy, I hope somebody can get through to him.
A PO structured as a Medicare buy-in would meet the “strengthen Medicare for seniors” by facilitating continuity of care. Go for it.
The two words should be BULL SHIT, because that’s what we were fed tonight.
You noticed He still didn’t forcably say what He wanted on healthcare, leaving it still up to the Congress.
Ninety percent or more of what He proposed has to pass Congress, and we see the great record of that.
Was it the house or Senate version he previously said was 95% of what he wanted?
don’t know, but I assume it was the Senate bill cuz that’s what he’s been pushing all along.
More BS from the BS president. Obama was never serious about single payer, never even serious about the compromise to it that he and Rahm introduced: the public option. As Russ Feingold noted, the bill that came out of the Senate is exactly what Obama wanted.
Obama’s State of the Union speech shows he continues to disappoint. Look for him and the people who really control him (Robert Rubin, the big banks like Goldman Sachs) to begin an assault on entitements next. That’s the whole idea behind the “presidential commission” he supports: cutting costs to Obama means cutting Social Security and medicare. He’s gotta pay for all those wars and bankbailouts somehow and it will be over the bodies of old people.
His credibility was already in shambles with me.
But when he went into how “clean” his administration is,
that was enough for me to hit the hay.
So, let’s pretend all the backroom deals never happened.
There’s Mr. Monsanto, Tom Vilsack, his Ag Secretary.
Oh, right. He doesn’t count.
single-payer
I’ve said this before…and I apologize for saying it…up front. But he reminds me of a co-dependent people pleaser, dealing with an alcoholic. Dems being the coda’s (which doesn’t mean they don’t have an alcohol problem but that this is not their dominate obsession…their dominate obsession is seeking those they cannot have). And the republicans being the “narcissistic alcoholic, child pornographer, gambler, cheater and religious fanatic”. He keeps wanting them to stop doing what they do. It’s as if he is obsessed by the need to break them. But in his conquest to break them of their “bad” habits, he is losing himself and his principles. He stayed calm, sure. But he is putting his need for their agreement with him above following his principles and taking care of himself and his nation. (and/or family if we follow the metaphor of an alcoholic family).
This results in continued “losing” and “demoralization” because you cannot win against a narcissistic alcoholic. The only way to win, is to detach with compassion. He doesn’t have to be an asshole to make it happen which is the dilemma that so many coda’s find themselves in. They think they have to either have to give in, compromise themselves OR they have to fight them. But there is a true middle road. (See Martin Luther King Jr, See Martin Buber, See Alanon). In this road, you put your principles, your higher power, your values ABOVE pleasing, compromising with the addict. You love them, as you would, but you take care of your principles and do what will work to maintain them, even if that means you must face the rage and anger of the addict. You find you are strong enough to tolerate the rage, and that is is in fact, not the addicts, (the republicans that caused your problems) but your own fear of them, that stood in the way. Your own compromise within that prevented happiness. It was never about them. It was always about “not fighting for your principles” not “aligning yourself with something bigger and following despite the madness”.
Sorry, had to get that out, but I really feel this is his “dynamic”. It fits his childhood and what we know about his experimentation with drugs. (he wasn’t the full blown addict, but he has the compulsions). He has abandonment issues…dad gone. Just as Clinton was a big “Victim” Obama is a big “codependent” in an alcoholic relationship. (very similar with subtle differences.
I think you are very close and explains what sounded so vacant,,,,the lack of courage to really face/speak the truth.
Three words for you Mr. President.Grayson For President!!!
I suggest spotlighting this whole article and thread to the White House.
No snark.
It is amazing how single payer isn’t even in the discussion anymore, even in the beginning it popularity was around 65% in most polls. Now the establishment democrats and republicans have marginalized the majority of people as wingnuts. I am not sure how that happened, but it is truly amazing.
Who would have thought that an individual mandate would have passed the Senate when the democrats had 60 votes and it was the republicans voting against it. Wanting single payer or at least a public option makes you the fringe.
Just as those who came before him have personal baggage, it sure didn’t stop them from pushing their agenda.
Here is a black man, in racIst America who came from nowhere, skyrocketing to becoming the most powerful man on earth. He knew how to get what he wanted. You’re saying that he suddenly regressed into a people pleaser? God, you’re naive. He’s a goddamn shark.
What you’re seeing is the biggest con man trying SO HARD to bring everyone together for the American people vs. reality. All of them are bagmen for Wall St. There’s no way to reconcile the two. That’s why the Dems will always fail. They could have an 80 seat majority and we’d see even more conservative Dems (the Wall St. ringers) holding up the will of the people.
I expect to see more cuts to domestic spending and a stealth increase in the privatization of government. Unemployment will remain high so long as they keep extending perversely oppressive unemployment benefits. They’ll toss a few bones just to keep people treading water, and pass legislation forcing us to feed corporate profits such as Obama’s Anti-Health Insurance Reform. Look at the privatization of our military. There are only gestures of accountability, feigned oversight, yet rampant fraud on a massive scale. They’ll bleed us into poverty by forcing us into accepting third world wages. Forget 9/11. This decade’s been about economic terrorism. This is what happenes when bankers contorl government and the media joins the enemy.
What we have before us is the wet dream of Wall Street.
The last forty years of government bad, privatization good, will be rammed down our throats till all those Reagan Democrats will be eating shit, if it even registers.
Starve the beast. Ignore them. Let Wall St. corporations piss away their billions without a return.
Fight fire with fire. BOYCOTT ELECTIONS.
Isn’t a PO as a “medicare buy in” a very regressive tax idea? I am not saying that I wouldn’t support it and don’t think that it wouldn’t be 100 times better than private insurance, but the debate has shifted so far to the right that we can’t even think about instituting a progressive tax structure to pay for health care.
Yeah, what about single payer?
I can see why you feel this way, but respectfully I disagree, and agree much more with clemenza.
I think Rahmbama knows exactly what he’s doing; I don’t think he’s co-dependent at all. I think he’s doing this junk as a giant kabuki show, which seems to fool some of the people all the time, and some of the people some of the time, but fools me not at all.
He’s full of it. And that question – if anyone has a suggestion, yadda yadda – got my blood to boiling, too. It’s certainly not as if we, the people, have not made several great, and “do-able” suggestions: either expand Medicare to everyone, single option, single payer. I mean: c’mon, what a load of crap. And of course, ObamaRahma was aiming his question at Republics, who have been obstructionist from before Day 1 and have made it blindingly CLEAR that they will remain obstructionist until the end of time.
So, yeah: let’s see. ObamaRahma has gotten numerous good, workable mandates from his constituents who voted him into office, but he has CHOSEN to utterly IGNORE those workable solutions. And then he uses conveniently obstructionist Republics as his scapegoat.
I’m sure his corporate masters are very happy with THAT solution. Big Ins, Big Pharma, etc: they are the only constituents to ObamaRama is serving, and it’s not about co-dependency. It’s about greed and show me the money. Rahmbama sold out a long, long time ago, and he’s very clear about what he’s doing and who he’s serving.
two other words: unintentionally funny!
It was United Healthcare’s program that has 95% of what he wants
I have two words for him too, but I wouldn’t want to print ‘em, but they consist of seven total letters.
Could someone explain how a bill with a public option could get through the Senate? Or did you just want to hear Obama give you a shout-out, to make you feel warm inside.
The system is broken. Ridiculously broken. I think insurance companies are useless institutions, that rob the average person blind just because they can. But all that money buys a lot of influence in Washington, and that will not change anytime soon. So, Obama has proposed a way of covering the 10 percent of our population that cannot afford insurance under the current system. He has cut deals along the way, greased palms – whatever you want to call it – so those companies do not derail reform. And if you think he could have gotten to this point (bills passing both chambers of Congress – much closer than Clinton ever got) without cutting those deals, you are ignorant of how our political system works.
Perfect is the enemy of good enough. You don’t like the health care bill because it doesn’t include a Public Option? Think it would be better to kill the bill, and just stick with what we’ve got? Terrific, because that’s most likely what we’re going to get. Bravo!
Don’t forget, there really are still 2 separate health insurance reform bills alive at this point, the execrable Senate bill and the marginally acceptable House Bill.
Killing the Senate bill does not kill health insurance reform.
Show me how you get 60 Senators to pass the House bill…
That obviously doesn’t work, so what’s the alternative? Reconciliation? That assumes you could get 50 Democrats to vote for the House bill, which I think is a non-starter. But, in the highly unlikely scenario that 50 Dems would vote for it, you would be severely constrained by the rules of reconciliation, which is not conducive to crafting a coherent (let alone good) reform bill.
Or, you could try to kill the filibuster, but then the lunatics on the Right would probably run for their fully-stocked shotgun cases.
… What is so execrable about the Senate bill, anyway? There’s a lot of peripheral nonsense, I know, but the core of the bill leaves you with something like what Massachusetts has. Which boils down to near-universal coverage, and which is overwhelmingly popular amongst MA residents (even the ones who voted for our hunky new Senator). That’s really not so bad, especially if the CBO is anywhere near right with its cost projections – if they are, it really is a huge win. Anyway, it is undoubtedly a whole hell of a lot better than what we have now (which is what the insurance companies REALLY want to see, anyway).
adverse selection. please don’t risk medicare with a buy in. expansion would be great, but not an optional buy in.
fixed it for you.
until the house substitutes it’s own bill for the senate language (using the senate bill number) as i understand it from kagro x (which was a few weeks ago), only the senate bill goes to reconciliation.
do you have some updated info on this?
it was sold to all three front runners (obama, clinton and edwards) by party insiders. i guess because they didn’t wanted something neoliberal to distract from the actual progressive policy (single payer). if the dems were ever serious about a po or universal coverage, one of the bills that came out of committee would have had the real thing (see stark’s americare bill hr 193). but none of them did.
we were punked.
Not having a public option is a good reason not to like the bill. In a way, the status quo is better than the bill because at least you’re not a criminal if you don’t want to throw away your hard earned money.
Who said anything about perfect?
But as long as you’re asking about enemies, the good has lots of enemies other than the perfect.
He’a BS artist. I have an older brother just like this guy in so many ways. He isn’t to be believed. We need to ignore the lips and watch the feet.
If the Senate version of the bill passes, I guarantee you it will kill Democrats down the road. The excise tax, the uncontrolled premiums and co-pays will come home to roost with the Democrats in future years, if not immediately. And in the immediate future, can you just hear the Republican ads prior to 2010 mid-terms: “Are you going to vote for the people who are going to add a 40% tax on the health insurance coverage your employer offers you? What happened to ‘if you like what you have, you can keep it’ “. It would be handing the Republicans a gift to use against every Democratic candidate who voted for the bill.
Not to be too prolix here but I’m with cbsunglass @20. My second vote would be as selise and a couple of others suggest, Single Payer.
There are thousands just like Him.
We call them used car salesman.
What the Senate Bill leaves you with is a vulnerability to the Special Interests who crafted the bill. The focus here needs to be on affordability!
Why else would folks be uninsured to begin with? Fifty in the House and Senate is not a, “Mission Impossible” Abortion and Anti Trust issues can be passed as single issues. A robust Public Option, [Beware of the details in the proposed, National Exchanges that have not been fully explained] Single Payer should be our first chip, and actually bargained with. The important thing here is to not be taken in with this, “Urgent” drive to pass through a watered down Senate Bill written by PhRMA! We have heard it all before to, “fix things later” [Remember how we were going to fix NAFTA later?]Two wrongs do not make a right when it comes to the Senate Bill!
Who says MA voters love their plan, the pundits?
I’ve heard otherwise.
And they pay the highest rates in the country.
That might appeal to you, me, not so much.
romneycare is better. i’m a MA voter who didn’t vote for coakley because of her support of an inferior version of romneycare. which btw has no cost controls, and so is unsustainable. already we’re down to limiting healthcare on the poor and politically weak. and worse 21% of People in MA Still Forgo Necessary Medical Care
Moment of clarity, here, folks — while I hate the Insurance Company Bailout Bill being pushed by BOTH the House and Senate… the PO, in reality, DOES NOT “reduce the deficit”.
It only does so if the MEDICARE PHYSICIAN PAY CUTS ARE NOT REVERSED.
No one believes that the cuts will actually be sustained — if so, add $250 billion to HC spending over the next decade and UNTOLD BILLIONS TO THE REAL COST OF THE PO.
If the Republicans live in fantasy-land, which they do — we have the MORAL OBLIGATION to be intellectually honest.
But isn’t the purpose also supposed to be to lower the costs to citizens? And doesn’t a PO do exactly that? With all due respect for the deficit hawks, complaining about how things can’t be done because of the deficit is buying into a right wing frame. And if it’s really too expensive for the government to deal with, I can think of a couple of wars, some bankster bailouts, some insurance company bailouts, and some overall DoD budget items that can be cut.
you sound like sarah palin
You left out the three biggest cost overruns of all Soc. Sec., medicare, and medicade