Tweet
Politico’s Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei use an otherwise predictable piece on how the Obama White House will try to regain the initiative on health care reform to concoct a story that "some" in the White House are actively looking for an opportunity to stand up to the liberals. Do we believe it?
Here’s the part made up by the Politico boys, followed by another unwarranted anonymous quote from a brave White House underling:
On health care, Obama’s willingness to forgo the public option is sure to anger his party’s liberal base. But some administration officials welcome a showdown with liberal lawmakers if they argue they would rather have no health care law than an incremental one. The confrontation would allow Obama to show he is willing to stare down his own party to get things done.
“We have been saying all along that the most important part of this debate is not the public option, but rather ensuring choice and competition,” an aide said. “There are lots of different ways to get there.”
Remember, this is Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei, so before the shooting starts, let’s just ask whether such a strategy makes sense.
The polls have been showing not simply an erosion in the President’s approval numbers but a decline in support from the liberal base of his own party. Politico says "some" in the White House are looking for an opportunity to make that worse.
There’s also been a further decline in the public’s understanding of and support for what they believe to be the basic elements of health care reform, and a rapid increase in those who believe outrageous lies about the reform proposals. A major exception has been the public’s apparent grasp and strong support for the idea that if consumers are required to purchase health insurance, they want to have the right to choose between a public health insurance option and private insurance plans. It’s not just a concept the public can easily grasp and support; the CBO thinks it probably reduces costs ($150 billion) and saves tax dollars when that seems to be a big concern.
So we have a White House grasping for a clear, understandable message that it can sell, reportedly thinking about throwing out the one clear idea people get and approve by overwhelming numbers. And further, "some" in the White House want to diss those who have been fighting hard against the Republican lies and media misrepresentations.
Next we have the fact the President has for more than a year explained to the American people, and assured his own supporters, that a viable public option was his preferred way to confront the private insurers with a competitive alternative that would serve to keep them honest, thus reenforcing the reform goals of proposed regulations to ban coverage denials based on prior conditions, curtail rescissions, and limit excessive rate discrimination.
But the Politico boys claim that "some administration officials" think that it would be good for the President to discard this element, betray his followers, and undermine his credibility at precisely the moment when his credibility needs shoring up.
Thus Politico wants us to believe that there are "some Administration officials," all of them anonymous, who are actively seeking to destroy the President’s credibility, turn off Democrats, weaken health reform, remove the one feature with extremely high public approval and do all this because . . . because John McCain taunted Obama last year that he can’t stand up to his own Party? How about standing up to McCain, and Grassley, and Steele, and the rest of the crazies?
Apparently Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei think the President of the United States is stupid.
And does the President know that "some" anonymous officials in his own White House are actively trying to undermine his agenda, his Party, and support for his Presidency? Because if that’s really happening, "some" people should be fired.
Related:
Jane Hamsher on the Baucus Caucus and Rahm
Polls: Rasmussen, New York Times, Survey USA (via HuffPo), EBRI/CAP.
107 Comments
“some people”
used to mean, some not very smart people.
i dont know about that, if they(un named leaker) were on the other side, why would they leak that kind of thing to an organization generally hostile to liberals, who would be sure to publish it for the general purpose of Liberal baiting.
“Some people” don’t know who is out there working for change. It isn’t the quitters.
It is perfectly reasonable that ”some” in the WH are willing to toss the PO for the sake of bipartisanship and cutting the deal. Among them are Obama himself, his HHS secretary, and Rahm. I’d feel better about your concept that politico is making it up if all the above three had not made public statements clearly stating that the PO wasn’t critical to reform.
Obama knows how to commit to an action absolutely. For example, the war in Afghanistan is ”a war of necessity”. But Obama has consistently stated that the PO is not a necessity.
Obama knows how to commit to an action absolutely. For example, the war in Afghanistan is ”a war of necessity”. But Obama has consistently stated that the PO is not a necessity.
Your first point is important — there are things that Obama cares enough about to stand up for, its just that real health care reform isn’t one of them.
But Obama hasn’t said (himself) that a “PO is not a necessity”. Instead, what Obama has done consistently, and repeatedly, is equivocate when asked direct questions about his commitment to a “public option”, and downgraded its importance (”just a sliver”).
The WH is behaving so irrationally and value-less that frankly nothing they do would surprise me except: stand up for decent health policy.
I’m guessing this is the latest rove tactic, they are trying to make it look like we are disorganized and fight among ourselves, therefore cannot govern
it happens to be true, sometimes tactics work because they tap trueisms
Pool boy (VanderWho?) is well, a pool boy in Politco’s clothing.
And Politico is, well, the Riggs Bank in journalist clothing.
Apparently Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei think the President of the United States is stupid.
I’m thinking that the converse is true.
Count me among the people that would like to believe that Allen and VandeHei are just making stuff up, but don’t think that’s the case. More likely Obama is reading and willing to shove the public option under the bus to get something he can call “reform” signed. In that case, it makes sense to leak this kind of story – Obama isn’t selling out, he’s taking a hard stand with his own party! What a leader! If you’re planning on selling out, you need some way to spin it as a positive, and it looks like now we know how he plans to spin it. Again, hoping I’m wrong, but not hopeful.
I understand the declining support of the base,(I’d say it’s more serious dissapointment than abandonment) but I haven’t seen any unconventional wisdom about independents. Is it his inability to change the tone, unwillingness to torture or what? Any ideas from outside the village?
the Mighty Kos weighs in on the polling wrt to Independents:
link
Mornin’ Scarecrow and All
(I left you a thank you.)
so good to see you here. will go over and read
hey, how about a blast from FDL past ? – this always comes to mind when I see or hear Van de Hei’s name – always
Good morning. Thanks for the Great Orange Juice link.
Thanks, that makes sense. So it’s no wonder that it’s being ignored.
IMHO, the loss of support among independents is based on Obama’s continued insistence on “bipartisanship”.
For a lot of people, Obama’s talk about “change” sounded like a promise to transcend partisan divisions. Bipartisanship embraces partisanship as a necessary component of the decisionmaking process. Obama’s refusal to take a stand against what is obviously an obstructionist strategy by the insurance companies in favor of “bipartisan” solutions represents a betrayal of what “independents” thought they were voting for.
did they mention if it was a current staffer?
To me, the bottom line involves whether enough votes can be garnered in the Senate to shut down a filibuster, or if a plan including a public option can be passed by reconcilliation. It is looking pretty iffy with regards to stopping a filibuster. I hear vague references to less than desirable results of the reconcilliation method. So, I would like understand what the pros and cons of a reconcilliation precess are, in order to be able to make a pragmatic judgment about what is actually possible.
Otherwise, I agree with your point that it is ridiculous to think Obama needs to demonstrate defiance of the liberal base.
I made a nice little annotated version of a recent poll graphic to point out the obvious last week…
These imaginary stories of pissing off the “liberals” would be humorous if they were being written by Red State or Powerline. In the more traditional media? That is just embarrassing – for them.
obama has disappointed in so many ways to this point that I would say that the story is an intentional leak. It seems to me that obama wants to see how much he can get away with in selling out those that believed he would bring some change in order to support the insiders in DC. If he can slide to a point that holds, he feels that he can probably over come the disappointment with good speeches and a lot of BIG BOY money.
I respectfully suggest that you read how Lincoln was treated in 1860 by his own party and the the Northern pro slavery element in the Union army. This “democratic” congress with very few exceptions is rotten to the core and almost an impossibilility, much like the army of the potomac which Lincoln had to deal with. These polling numbers only reflect the lack of any coherent support from the rank and file democratic congress.
The various votes that obama has made as a Senator (FISA, bankruptcy) and the lack of taking any strong stand in opposition to the big money are not attributable to “the Army of the Potomac” or Congressional leadership. The WH has made the case that we (the nation) had to save the financial companies that were “too big to fail” and we would help the “little guys” with their home foreclosures. Well, we threw money and the banks and asked if they needed more; we are still waiting to see any help come for the little guys and their foreclosure problems. Other reasons to doubt any change have already been noted in these comments.
Yeah blame it on Obama that he has a good for nothing congressional leadership that can’t or won’t bring it home. And that’s his fault. As far as the banks are concerned, you miss the point. It was the Clintons and other wall street democrats who paved the way for deregulation and the democrats under the last democratic administration became a bunch of finance guys, look the Clintons even said that Robert Rubin was the best SOT since AH. Obama has so few options with the democrfatic party finance guys left behind. How would you have Obama take on Wall Street at this juncture. This democratic congress is the latest version of the Army of the Potomac. And I am quite sure that Obama pukes after each meeting with Larry Summers aka Larry Samuelson. He ain’t got no other choice though.
Let’s face it, the PO is dead.
Quite the contrary, it’s never been more alive.
Note Steny’s walk back at his town hall; he never would’ve said that if not for direction from Pelosi or the White House.
The internals from the polls have spoken — no public option, no support from the left, and no matter how many Blue Dog friends they try to make they can’t make up the difference.
The actual news would be if there were an issue where they White House has stood up FOR the most liberal position. Almost across the board on the biggest of items (not that Lily Ledbetter and Minimum Wage increases weren’t big issues but…) this administration has turned to the right.
Obama seems more and more like Mr. Dithers than a force for change, even though he is playing against the dumbest opposition in living memory. Hopefully he will soon start getting audacious, if there is any truth in advertising.
I believe he has done so. The only thing he has insisted on–non-negotiable–is that the reform cover everyone and bringw down costs. by not including the public option, he is by definition considering it expendable. Plus you have the balloons floated by HHS and Rahm, and it seems pretty conclusive that the PO is on the table.
have you seen a bill on the table that will cover everyone and bring down costs?
i haven’t.
if that was really the goal, something like single payer hr 676 (improved medicare for all) would be on the table.
HR 67http://static1.firedoglake.com/common/images/editor/italic.gif6 is on the table as the Weiner Amendment. Reports are that not even its sponsors will vote for it.
If the public option within a competitive exchange framework won’t bring down costs, why is the insurance industry fighting so hard to the point of astroturfing teabaggers? The public option brings down costs within the public plan, but it also exerts pressure on insurers to bring down cost without sacrificing coverage or risk employers buying into the public plan at the first opportunity. The elimination of cost shifting by providers will also help bring down costs for those who currently have insurance. The public plan will also have the power to negotiate payment of providers by pricing other than the micromanaged fee-for-service system introduced during the Reagan administration for Medicare and widely copied by the private insurance companies. These alternative pricing mechanisms would trade reductions in provider prices for reductions in administrative overhead and certainty of prompt payment.
Will that be as much cost reductions as a public plan. Of course it won’t unless the insurance companies have no profits at all. But it will bring down costs enough to cost insurers their double-digit profit margins. And more importantly, people will see some immediate benefits (from the elimination of cost shifting and coverage of the uninsured), the benefits increase as the exchanges and public plan kick in in 2013 and as employers move folks to the public option either by purchasing from the public option or releasing their employees to purchase from the public option.
And if the insurance industry can’t compete, the public plan becomes de facto single-payer, provided that a reversal in Congress doesn’t undermine it.
that’s just not true of any of pos currently on the table. 1) there are big limitations to who can access the po, 2) insurance companies compete by denying care. more competition doesn’t fix that. there’s lots more, for starters i strongly recommend this post: Bait and switch: How the “public option” was sold
HR 3200 has restrictions on denial of care. Pre-certs are gone. Pre-existing conditions exclusions are gone. Rescissions are gone. In all of the bills thus far. The exchange rules (and we have to watch them like a hawk if HR 3200 passes) will define what can and cannot be done by a qualified program in the exchange as Federal Regulation rather than as law; it is within the authority of the Secretary of HHS. Those provisions are whether a public plan passes or not. What the public plan does is establish a benchmark pricing that employers and individuals can use to compare plans, since the public plan will have pricing based on Medicare rates.
The bait and switch happens if the Senate Finance Committee Gang of Six forces through its plan, which is increasingly unlikely because (1) other Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee have seen through its as Republican sabotage of healthcare reform and (2) the three Republicans in the Gang of Six (well maybe excepting Olympia Snowe) won’t vote for the Gang of Six plan in committee.
could you please point to me the language in hr 3200 that will protect families like the sarkisyan (their daughter was denied a liver transplant)?
patient skimming and adverse selection is much more complicated than you’ve described. and insurance companies are expert at it…. in fact, in the usa there are multiple examples of failed attempts. i’ll look for some links on this later today if you’ve read them.
TarheelDem, I think the bait-and-switch argument is more about the difficulty of a weak PO such as that in HR 3200 being able to create a network of providers along with low enough prices that it can be a viable competitor for the privates. Kip Sullivan’s articles argue that the POs in the House and Senate bills are so different, and so much weaker than Jacob Hacker’s original proposals that they will not be viable. I think he’s right.
He also argues that even a strong PO of the Hacker-type would still not measure up to HR 676 in its cost-cutting potential, and I agree with that argument too.
And also more on bait-and-switch in this post.
my understanding is that reform including a PO would have a chance of ‘bending the curve’–deflecting the cost curve. It would not actually decrease costs in the near term. single payer would do so, imo.
However, I was not trying to describe what I thought was best, but rather what this Administration has said is “non-negotiable”.
thanks for the clarification
“cover everyone” by forcing everyone to buy it.
“bring down cost” by reducing the amount govt will spend to subsidize low income people. oila! president obama’s genius plan! he “kept his promise” and gets the industry support that was red hot priority number 1 for this bunch.
yikes. you’re right!
silly me. i was thinking that “brings down costs” means brings down costs for us, the people of the usa.
I think liberals and progressives need to draw a line in the sand just like the 60 or so congressional reps and the AFL-CIO. If Obama throws the PO under the bus, like I think he is prepared to do, the libs need to THROW OBAMA UNDER THE BUS. Commit to finding a new candidate in 2012. Period. End of story. All these trial balloons and what not are BS. If Obama doesn’t do the PO, the libs need to hit him hard and fast, then start promoting their new candidate. In addition, they should start dissing all his OTHER crap big time, like, Afghanistan etc. Send Cindy Sheehan over there to protest in front of the White House!!
Right on!
Thanks Sambot. Libs NEED to ‘move their troops closer to the front line” sort to speak. If they are really gonna fight this thing. What is THEIR (the libs) strategy? They need to mobilize their army, make viable threats and back it up with money from supporters. Big Time. Then Follow through.
You are on firedoglake and saying that we need to do what Jane Hamsher, dKos’s slinkerwink, and dKos’s nyceve have been doing for the past three months? And thousands of progressives have been following up on.
Plus, there is an active effort to have a September 13 march on Washington be a good show of support for healthcare reform.
Ain’t gonna work, cuz they have more money than all of us combined. September 13 is too soon to generate the numbers needed to mandate the attention of the msm, although I am able to be there, too many of us need more time to plan. We need something more akin to Woodstock, (i.e. an extended stay.)
Oh, ain’t it awful. We’re lost.
To answer your first question: Yes; I believe it. Obama will continue to throw us under the bus until Rahmie’s plan to destroy the Democratic Majority we elected in 2006 and 2008 is accomplished. Ending the expansion of the Democratic majority in this country as quickly as possible seems to be Rahmie’s most urgent goal; and Obama hired him so it’s reasonable to assume he agrees.
Your recitation of all the hopey/changey stuff from the campaign and a belief that Obama gives a crap about the Democratic Party, its base, it’s liberal Representatives and Congressmen, and VOTERS does nothing persuade me otherwise. He’s done so little in office to lend credibility to the argument.
Your statement:
“let’s just ask whether such a strategy makes sense.”
is perfectly logical in this or any other environment. However, I fear based on what Obama & Co have done so far the Politico article passes that test with flying colors.
Lets recap Obama’s actions since Jan, 2009 -
- throw gays and lesbians under the bus
- throw reform of financial systems under the bus to protect Wall Street
- ignore and or throw health care reform under the bus to please big pharma and insurance companies
Based on this what’s so shocking about Politico’s article?
Sadly, the Politico article looks reasonable to me -
has there ever been any good polling data to show that the public knows what the po is? from ralphbon’s diary: 63% of Americans Can’t Pick the Public Option Out of a Three-Suspect Lineup:
Sounds like the educational component is falling on its face.
agree.
i’m just speculating, but i’d think that the lack of public understanding about what the dems are proposing (whatever that is) is one of the things that gives fertile ground to right wing lies.
But if in their ignorance they think it is a British style system (real “government run healthcare”)and still support it, isn’t that good, i.e., indicating that support for something more like single payer or public option is acceptable to the vast majority of the people over the clusterfuck we have now?
we have years of polls showing good support for single payer national health insurance.
http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html
but i haven’t seen any good polls to compare sp to po. and imo it would be hard to do without some serious explanation (and that just invites bias). still would love to see someone try.
well just fuck ducks. Looks like Politico may be right:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo…..option.php
Okay…Take a valium and breathe. Muckraker is quoting the very same piece from Politico. Two references to the very same column are NOT confirmation.
thank you for that. I do need to breathe. Sun’s up and it’s still cool…time for a walk and think about something else.
Note to self: click thru before cussing
We all need to breathe and step back sometimes. :-)
“an aide said” White House aide? Baucus aide? McConnell aide?
Is United Healthcare’s Jim Messina getting into the act again? If the leak is legit, that’s my guess of the source.
But Politico being Politico, this could be fabricated from whole cloth.
We will have to wait and see, and the suspense is driving us nuts.
Is Obama changing Washington , or is Washington changing Obama ?
I guess we’ll have to see what action he takes when congress returns ,and whether or not he’ll cave on the public option
I suppose Politico could be right. After all, I found myself agreeing with some of what George Will was saying the other day. On the other hand, it would be monumentally stupid for Obama to do what Politico is suggesting but they have a well known agenda of damaging Democrats in general and Obama in particular. I don’t want to believe it but recent history won’t allow me to dismiss the idea.
Another day of required scrolling and “no feeding” critters under the bridge.
selise,
Thanks for your points.
thanks. you are most welcome.
the other thing i was wondering…. if most of the public doesn’t even know what a po is — say for example the one in hr 3200 — will they remember in 2013 to be pissed off they don’t have it?
i hate to say this, but i just don’t see the political downside with voters for the administration to dump the po (as currently configured). i’d guess the mandate (combined with the lack of cost control) is going to be so hated that everything else will be overshadowed.
just can’t help seeing the reform the dems are pushing as being anything other than a massive fail politically (healthcare wise is harder i think to judge). but what do i know?
While it may be true that the public is confused about what constitutes a public option (like medicare for all), 77 percent are in still in favor of it.
Probably getting reamed by insurance companies has a great deal to do with public option support. Note that most Republicans and Independents are also in favor of a public option.
now i’m confused *g*
are you saying that the public option is “medicare for all” or that the same percentage of public that doesn’t know what a po is also don’t know what medicare is?
The 77% of the public who wants a public plan want a “Medicare for all” kind of public plan.
The public actually understands this more than the media and a lot of the blogs think they do.
The public understands what an exchange is because they know folks who work for the federal government, or their companies have a limited two- or three-option exchange.
you’ve just proved my point that many people don’t know what the public option is.
“medicare for all” is a single payer and not a public-option-in-a-multipayer-system.
i’ve got to go now, but will try to remember to check back later to see if you want info on other attempts to control for adverse selection.
The downside on dumping the public option is when any mandates kick in and there is not cost control outside of the end of cost shifting, which might be mitigated by increased premiums to cover those with pre-existing conditions and those who would previously would have received rescission notices.
The downside on dumping the public option is pissing off the liberal base, who sits on their hands in 2010 and lets the Blue Dogs be savaged and sits on their hands in 2012.
Right now, the dems aren’t pushing; they are divided because of the insurance company shills who have been hiding under the Blue Dog cloak — Baucus, Ross, Conrad…
What the Senate Finance Committee Gang of Six has been pushing is indeed and epic fail both politically and as policy.
If the public doesn’t get a public plan or if the public gets shit labeled as a public plan, they won’t remember in 2013. But if the public gets a strong public plan, in 2013 they will probably want to switch to it unless the insurance industry has willingness to compete than they have shown thus far.
there is not a strong public plan in any of the bills (if by strong you mean something that will compete with private insurers to drive them out of business. “the public plan becomes de facto single-payer”).
that public option was already dumped. the political calculation is now about dropping a tiny public option that can not compete at anything close to what you’ve described.
i encourage you to advocate for the strong public option you’ve described. i think it would be great. i’m just trying to say that first you’ve got to get it on the table, because it’s not in any of the bills. please read the bait and switch post i linked to above.
The Bait and Switch article is a good history of how we got here. A mainstream press corroboration of this piece is Business Week’s piece on how United Healthcare cooked the books with the Lewin group and mainstreamed it into the Baucus committee (and through Baucus’s side Jim Messina into the White House).
Risk of stillbirth is not the same as not on the table:
There are substantial universal coverage and patient-protecting cost containment provisions in both the Senate HELP bill and HR 3200 (even after markup of the three committees, which has not be reconciled for the floor yet). In addition, HR 676 is still on the table and available for votes on the House floor as the Weiner amendment to HR 3200.
If HR 3200 comes to the floor with the more egregious amendments from the Energy and Commerce Comittee (Waxman’s commitee) stripped out, then the public plan there returns to being more like Medicare for All as an exchange option.
The limits on the pool in the public plan are the firewalls that the drafter put in to assure insurers that there would not be a rush to the exits when the public plan began. They limit individuals who are currently served by an employer plan from choosing the public plan unless they are paying a high percentage of their income for their share of premiums. They limit large corporations from going immediately to the public plan. Employers other than large corporations have these options: they can change to the public plan at any time, most likely when their current insurance contract runs out; they can keep their private plan; they can pay an assessment and let their employees buy from the public plan.
This is enough for a public plan to become popular. And to be competitive with private insurers without any greater subsidies than private plans will get for covering low-income policyholders in the exchange. It is not Medicare for all, but it does not close that door. In the bill as it stands, despite concerted Republican effort in committee to do that.
So both of these are on the table and available for House members to vote for them on the floor. Then it goes to the Senate, and no one knows what happens. But in reconciliation, there is the opportunity for progressives in the House to hold the bill hostage (as Blue Dogs have often done) by refusing to vote for a bill without a strong public option. Now it is the progressives in the House who will define what that public option looks like–thus the whip effort by Jane Hamsher, slinkerwink, and nyceve.
All is not lost – yet.
TarheelDem, you may also want to read this one. I think selise has already seen it.
mad props to you for your spot on comments in those ridiculous Big Orange ‘full disclosure’ comment threads
I’m still unable to comment over there due to a long time tech glitch and was glad to see someone so deftly smacking them around with the facts
selise, you said:
People may not understand what is meant by the PO, but I’m sure they do think it’s 1) something in their interests and not in the insurance companies interests, 2) public and not private, and 3) meant to compete with the privates so that they can go somewhere else to get “affordable” insurance when they lose theirs. If the PO is jettisoned, or if it is passed in such a way that 3) is not accomplished in the next year, I think much of the public will believe that they were screwed by Obama and the Democrats in favor of the insurance companies. Add the mandates to this picture and we’ve got an electoral disaster in 2010, that will threaten even some progressives unless they seen as resisting this with all their might.
that’s why i wrote “as currently configured”
there just isn’t a po that does what you want (”in the next year”) on the table right now. “the” po being discussed and possibly dumped, is at best the mouse model po. that po, i think, is unlikely to stem the anger over individual mandates (maybe i’m wrong).
so, if the fight is going to be over a public plan, i’d argue that it matters what public plan is being fought over. and imo, i don’t think the mouse model is worth the fight (understanding that other people disagree).
Romney care does that. Don’t it?
Do Massachussetts residents really get fined for not buying health insurance?
What prevents for-profit health insurance companies from raising premiums later? What prevents for-profit health insurance co’s from selling crappy policies? What prevents for-profit health insurance companies from denying claims?
Excellent analysis, scarecrow.
Politico is just a Republican e-rag.
If the WH is not promoting Progressive ideas then the WH is promoting the enemy’s ideas…it’s just that simple. Unless the WH has a secret ‘psyops agenda’..yeah right.
If Obama is not fighting for his voters..he is political dust.
I am disgusted with Obama’s “leadership” on healthcare reform – he and his “aides” have changed messages enough times to make the “Clinton triangulation” meme seem trivial. Add to that, the White House has let the Bachmann coalition of crazytown Republicans run away with the debate thus far. All while purporting to seek bipartisan compromise with a group that has been giving them all a handjob from the beginning.
The only victors in this sport will be the insurance industry.
Don’t forget the Republicans.
No, it is nonsense.
Obama must come back from vacation with immediate and vigorous endorsement of the Public Option.
If that doesn’t happen, then there is no doubt that Obama has tricked us.
like leading hogs to slaughter.
I feel a stimulus package redux. Water healthcare reform down to what is only acceptable to repubs – then act all surprised when no repubs vote for it. I am feeling really cynical at this point, no illusions left that Obama is playing three dimensional chess – he is getting beat by the repubs playing tiddily winks.
The type of sourcing that Politico references sounds to me like a trial balloon from the White House. Not a shining example of leadership from Obama. Let’s face it. He is not committed to a public option and he won’t get behind one unless the politics of the issue force him to do so. We need to keep the pressure on.
EPU’d – I am disgusted with Obama’s “leadership” on healthcare reform – he and his “aides” have changed messages enough times to make the “Clinton triangulation” meme seem trivial. Add to that, the White House has let the Bachmann coalition of crazytown Republicans run away with the debate thus far. All while purporting to seek bipartisan compromise with a group that has been giving them all a handjob from the beginning.
The only victors in this sport will be the insurance industry.
have you read Jane’s Baucus Caucus and Rahm post?? (linked at the bottom of Scarecrow’s piece)
sadly, it explains a lot. it is troubling and frustrating but at least one quits banging their head on the desk.
really am leaving, but just wanted to say that i also thought that post of jane’s was brilliant. it connected a lot of dots for me and recommend it to all who have not read it.
The only way U.S. is going to get a public option, (even though single payer is more effective and efficient) is if a few million people show up in D.C.
This is a very familiar scenario, don’t you people have memories? The government does this all of the time and until you/we get in their collective face, they will continue. All of the work and effort some people have put into getting Obama elected with a filibuster proof majority in the senate and a democratic majority in congress will have been proven futile. Nothing else will work. What victory can the liberals/progressives claim that improved Americans’ lives at the ballot? None. We have been subject to the longest gang rape this country has seen. I do have faith in Americans one day reaching their limit and doing what it takes to set things back on the course dictated by our constitution. (I looked, it doesn’t say anything about bailouts or corporate personhood in it.)
I for one am going to simply shake my head in disbelief and disgust at the naivete of those who express surprise when the health care “reform” package is finalized. Obama only adopted it as a platform for his campaign because it was a cornerstone of Hillary’s. His entire strategy was to lure the latino voters who will soon be betrayed also. Democrats were taken for granted all along. This will become clearer as more of his policies are unveiled, but I don’t know how much more you really need to see? (before you start, I have been a longtime Kucinich supporter despite the laughter of my more intelligent friends)
I didn’t used to have anarchist views, but government no longer abides by the constitution.
Every major change in America’s policies that has benefited the people, has been brought about through “civil disobedience.” That is the only “change you can believe in”. ;)
If the first amendment doesn’t work, the second one will.
For those who don’t know:
1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
How about you and 999,999 of your closest friend show up there on September 13. There is a march being organized.
Now were getting somewhere.
Obama- career politician who promised the gullible free healthcare to
get elected.
The best bill that all sides could agree to is a cap on pre-existing conditions in return for tort reform. That’s a minimal deal, but would save money and not cost the Federal government anything.
Not going to be any tort reform. All the lobbyists for the ambulance chasers have the Democrats paid off.
If the government wants to encourage insurance to extend coverage a limitation of punitive damages and frivolous lawsuits would automatically cut malpractice insurance and defensive medicine practiced.
No, it wouldn’t. Look at the states that HAVE tort reform and compare them with those that don’t.
Troll.
The malpractice insurance in Texas (which I am familiar with) has gone down…
I’ve said it before and I will say it again:
SHOW ME YOUR COMPANY AND I’LL TELL YOU WHAT YOU ARE. My momma told me that and I’m saying it to you readers about Obama.
To illustrate:
Obama’s Best Friends Forever are Geithner, Summers, Bernanke, AIG, Goldman Sachs, AIG (now AIU), Rahm Emanuel, Baucus, Ben Nelson, Conrad, Wall Street, PhRMA, insurance industry execs, et alia.
Now, who do you think Obama is listening to? Who do you think Obama played golf with while on vacation? Who does Obama think has the big pockets who can support his and his companions’ campaigns, ambitions, and interests? Obama has already proven who his BFFs are with the stimulus money and the bullpucky about the profits the US is getting from the stimulus recipients. He’s proven just how much of his campaign promises he intends to live up to, to wit: Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; Blackwater contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan; investigations into the criminal activities of the Bush Administration; Clinton/Bush renditions; immigration reform, and, yes, Health Care Reform. Obama is George W, Jr. He punked us. Our crummy $10, $25, even $1,000 or $2,500 donations mean nothing when compared to what he got from his BFFs. So, folks, it is VERY POSSIBLE, even likely he will drop the public option. After all, it’s what we little punks want, not what Wall Street wants. So, who do you think Obama will want to please? Before you answer, rephrase what was said earlier: Show me Obama’s company and then tell me what he’ll do!!!!!!!!!!
Psst. The President of the United States IS stupid. …. There, I said it!
Since Bush set the nadir for stupid, I guess you can admit that at least he has greater synaptic activity than George Bush, eh?? His was just above brain dead.
If the President ditches the PO, progressives should refuse to vote for any bill except HR 676, or failing that an insurance industry regulatory bill that immediately ends all the cherry-picking abuses they use to avoid covering people and charge them special rates. If progressives hold out for that and only that, Obama and the blue dogs will be forced to accept that as a minimal reform necessary to save their butts. Then next year, when insurance prices have gone up by 10 or more percent and still more businesses end employee coverage, we can introduce HR 676 once again.
This is precisely what the progressive caucus will do.
Revroe, you’re an optimist.
vandeHei and Allen have ZERO CREDIBILITY and are only speculating this to rev up the progressives. They’re know sycophants and wholly-owned by the GOP. No one believes a word they have to say. Politico.com has become a cipher of itself and no progressives read their site any longer. Paid sychphants and media whores shilling for a dollar…..pretty pathetic.
Whoa, folks! Why would anyone choose to believe the speculation of two known shills for the GOP regarding how intelligent our POTUS is?
The combined IQ of these two men isn’t even of “room temperature numbers” while Obama is one of the smartest individuals in the country.
If you dislike Obama, that’s one thing (be on your merry way then and stop trolling about what is obviously your own bigotry posing as discussing a relevant issue).
Those of us who do believe in Obama will give him the respect to wait and see what he has to say.
The reich wingnuts like these two guys have been trying to goad Obama into doing what Bush was criticized for – meddling with and corrupting congress and then forcing everything he did through reconciliation.
Get a life, Politico shills.
The next trick of the GOP: Once they realize that a PO will be in the bill, they will be working against us to dilute it so that it doesn’t even resemble any of the early models. Watch for this because these shysters in congress (Repukes) do it every time.
Why in the hell do we continue to pay the salaries of these charlatans across the aisle? I say it’s high time to demote any and all who so overtly work against the Middle Class citizens of this country.
This headline doesn’t even make sense….Politico says that the WH will throw Obama’s credibility and party under the bus….What the hell are these idiots smoking over at Politico?
Last time I looked, the WH IS President Obama and the Democratic Party. So now we have a new entity known as the “WH” (White House).
Allen and VandeHei (high on what?) are total idiots on the face of this bogus assertion and unabashedly fictional propaganda piece.
This doesn’t even warrant responding to any further.
Just never visit Politico.com again or “do so at the risk of losing your intelligence”.
Take your medication……please.