Tweet
The question many health reform advocates have been asking about the public option debate is “what’s the problem”??? Why isn’t the President demanding it, pushing it, selling it? Well, maybe he doesn’t want it.
Why, given strong Congressional majorities in favor of a public option, continuing strong polling support across the country, and overwhelming support from Democratic voters, is Harry Reid treating the matter as though it were a close call?
To be sure, getting 60 votes for cloture is a challenge, but that is not the same as needing 60 votes for a public option, no matter how many times the media equates the two. Only 5 or 6 Senate Democrats are even opposed in concept. Yet not one of these holdouts has publically declared that he/she would join a filibuster to keep a public option from getting a simple majority-rule vote. Sen. Harkin correctly asks, why should these five be empowered to force over fifty to give in?
Everyone also knows that if Harry Reid puts a viable public option in the Senate bill, there aren’t 60 votes to remove it. So why is Harry Reid behaving as though Democrats had something to fear if they demand party loyalty on a cloture vote and then push through a measure that has more voter support than any health reform measure they’ve proposed outside banning insurers from denying coverage to the sick?
Night after night, we are reminded (thanks to Nancy Pelosi prodding CBO) that a strong public option will save tens of billions, give consumers a choice in an industry that is dangerously concentrated and lacking in competition, and put pressure on insurers to lower premiums in the face of their promises/threats to raise them. Everyone now realizes a strong public plan could provide a credible, government-guaranteed alternative even if the private insurers succeed in evading new government regulations banning their most outrageous practices — practices whose evil effects we see repeated on a daily basis. So what’s the problem?
The Beltway conventional wisdom, steeped in cynicism, is that the White House is being disingenuous when it repeatedly says the President supports a public option. WH officials claim Obama believes it is “the best way” to provide an affordable choice and reduce costs. But then why is he not working to get it adopted in the Senate, and explicitly directing his OFA troops to help that effort? Why has he ducked every opportunity to make even the logical argument that the burden is on detractors to show there’s a better measure? No one has seriously attempted such a case.
In House and Senate leadership efforts to merge their respective bills, it’s curious that no one has noticed that House Speaker Pelosi does not seem to need the White House to tell her how to merge three House bills while improving them. But apparently, Harry Reid is not capable — or cannot be trusted — to merge two Senate bills without having Rahm Emanuel, Peter Orszag and Kathleen Sebelius present every meeting.
There’s nothing wrong with the Senate consulting with the White House about what they’re willing to push and pay for. But the White House told reporters that all the key decisions would be made by Harry Reid. So why are these senior White House people, including the man who sees himself as the center of the universe, there if not to tell Harry Reid what he can and cannot decide?
It is hard to avoid the fear that this White House has now become a principal obstacle to getting meaningful health care reform. It claims it wants major cost reductions in Medicare, via a semi-autonomous cost-cutting commission. But the White House has already bargained away the savings it can achieve from most of the major providers: PhRMa ($80 billion), hospitals ($155 billion) so they can give it back to the doctors (for whom AMA is demanding $240+ billion more over ten years in relief from automatic Medicare reductions).
Why should we not also believe that the White House has a deal to shield insurers from competition by preventing the creation of a public option in exchange for the insurers agreeing to reforms on guaranteed issue and limited community ratings (with the flexibility Baucus provided) and to support this framework with tv ads? (Read Ignagni’s WaPo op-ed today; while defending the PwC study, she says they made a deal, but Baucus broke it; she didn’t say the deal’s off.)
The White House isn’t taking up most of the chairs in Harry’s Reid’s meetings just to watch him make decisions on his own. They’re there to make sure Harry Reid doesn’t undo the White House deals and wander off the reservation.
This President has filled the White House with people who have no inclination to pose any major challenge to the economic power of America’s dominant financial industries (GM being an exception). We’ve already seen this in their dealings with Wall Street investment banks and their too-big-to-fail is too-big-to-challenge approach to financial regulation. We’re seeing it now with efforts to shield the major health and insurance industries from any fundamental challenge.
Sure, there are changes being offered, new regulations being proposed, and more people will be insured than before. But there is no framework being laid for a new structure for how health care is delivered and paid for in America. That is the pattern of this White House, and there is little basis to expect otherwise.
Watch the decisions Harry “makes” in coming days. My bet is they’ll shore up the underlying deals — they’ll make mandated insurance modestly more affordable and fix the mandates a bit, while protecting the insurers from a viable, functioning public option. The industry will still control a system in which consumers will be forced to buy their unreliable products with government subsidies.
And seeing this coming, Nancy Pelosi will push a more reform-minded House to fight back as hard as they can. The House now carries the hopes for even limited reform. Sadly, her opposition is not just the Senate’s 60 vote barrier; it’s in the White House.
167 Comments
Thank you. I’ve been getting a little tired of the assumption by many of these commenters of late that Obama was somehow responsible for bringing us this far on the PO by virtue of his ingenius mastery of 12 dimensional political chess. That is rubbish and an insult to all who have worked so hard in spite of this Presidential poseur. All these horsecrap deals w/ Big Pharma and others oughta be sh**canned immediately. Hang in there Nancy.
Great piece Scarecrow. I think Obama’s the problem too. I said not too long ago that we would know soon whether Obama really wanted a PO or not. I think the answer is becoming increasingly plain with each passing day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoHF_7lZx_8
So risks are assessed using formulas to determine which plans end up with lower risk populations, which end up with higher risk populations. Those that have lower risk pools pay into a fund that compensates plans with higher risk populations.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0795/is_n2_v16/ai_16863015/
In plain English: “govt negotiates prices for all private and public insurance, thereby lowering adminsitrative costs and creating an equal playing field. It’s a single payer system, but a different name, and allowing for more private ownership”
Neither idea is predicated on the existence of the public option, neither precludes it; both are said to help keep costs down and are used in Germany, Switzerland and Holland. Both could be grafted onto the bills being drafted in Congress right now.
And yes, single payer is still the least expensive route to universal coverage, but that doesn’t seem to be in the cards.
i heard t. r. reid say in an interview this year that the threat of a po was the bargaining chip for guaranteed issue and community rating but i don’t remember exactly when it was he said that. and now i’m kind of curious, will see if i can find the specific reference. anyway, i guess if a real po was the stick, the mandate is the carrot.
preservation and expansion of the FIRE industry economic parasitism seems to be the number one priority of this administration’s economic team. but really, that is not so surprising with larry summers in charge. among his many outrages, larry summers helped kill 3 million people with the economic policies imposed on russia during the clinton years (for more on this, i highly recommend naomi klein’s the shock doctrine, joseph stiglitz’s globalization and it’s discontents, and an article in the jan 15, 2009 lancet, mass privatisation and the post-communist mortality crisis: a cross-national analysis. (also in that issue of the lancet is a related commentary by stiglitz, trade agreements and health in developing countries.)
the history of the clinton years reveals that in too many ways, the economic team obama has put together, has shown not just a dislike of regulation, but a disregard for human life and health. unadulterated by a stiglitz or a robert reich (members of the clinton economic team who argued for economic policies to put people first), the larry summers economic team is imo seriously dangerous.
just a reminder to anyone not following all of scarecrow’s diaries. there is no “strong” public option in any of the bills before congress. there are only small, weak, possibly not even viable pos that would only be available in 2013 to about 10% of the population unless expanded years later. it will not control costs (cost savings are projected to be less than half a percent of total costs, and obamacare will greatly increase the national healthcare costs now at something like $2.7 trillion.
such a fragile and small po will be extremely dependent on hhs regulation and enforcement. given what we know of this administration’s willingness to regulate the FIRE industry, i do not expect much if anything from a po that survives the legislative process. in fact, if a po does survive, against the apparent wishes of the white house, it will be very easy to hobble or even kill by regulatory means.
all this doesn’t mean there aren’t humanitarian reasons to support a po as a refuge for some of the seriously ill from the abusive practices of private insurance. but we should be clear on that, otherwise over-hyping a po that doesn’t deliver risks 1) blowback to the dems for their failure and 2) making the case that gov is a failure at public insurance, putting a stake through the heart of single payer national health insurance.
not yet. that’s what social movements are for (btw, i very strongly recommend the book, doing democracy, for more on this).
and something very exciting is happening!
78 people in 20 days and hundreds more signed up.
we can help support these efforts, with bail money and especially by amplifying the message. spread the news! and check the website for more: http://www.MobilizeForHealthCare.org
Ain’t secret government grand?
Absolutely accurate and vital points about the lay of the land in today’s Congress, Scarecrow, which need to be understood by anyone hoping to make sense of the rumors our secrecy-riddled legislature now generates in lieu of informed public debate:
All of which Harry Reid willingly enables, being the obliging Presidential Monarchy power-servant he’s proven himself to be.
If we knew our history better, I think we’d note with alarm the ominous and profoundly-undemocratic import of empty debating chambers in both the Senate and the House when both legislative bodies are purportedly “in session.” Empty and echoing chambers in an allegedly self-governing Republic, with no one present but staff and the occasional lone legislator mouthing canned campaign speeches to the TV camera – except, that is, during the occasional moments when the back-room-blessed outcomes of undemocratic deals are ushered into the light for obligatory, pre-scripted rubber-stamping or ritual slaughter on the public record, so as to maintain the appearance of a functioning Legislative Branch of government.
It’s just such a pre-ordained health insurance reform deal that is now being constructed into effectively unamendable concrete behind closed doors by Executive Branch powerbrokers, with the cover of Harry Reid’s Senate position as a paper-thin disguise to hide the legislation’s actual origins. Effectively unamendable, assuming a Unanimous Consent Agreement limiting, and setting 60-vote thresholds for passage of any meaningful, amendments accompanies whatever deal finally heads to the Senate floor, where genuine, unscripted “debate and amendment” used to occur, long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away.
In addition, I’m afraid, the secret deal now being constructed in Harry Reid’s private office is an attempt to pre-determine the final Congressional outcome so as to shorten and subvert the process – conveniently end-running any Pelosi/House opposition – of the future secret conference report meetings between (supposedly) House and Senate. Secret conference meetings where the last bite of the apple by way of unaccountable changes to House and Senate legislation now in fact gets done in Congress not by the appointed conference committee members, but by the Executive Branch directing compliant Congressional Party leaders, on the most momentous or lucrative pieces of proposed legislation.
Most recent example: The one Louise Slaughter courageously revealed about how the detainee abuse photo-censoring, aka “National Security Document Protecting,” legislation was ordered passed in the House by Obama and his surrogates – an order that was of course obediently obeyed by Dave Obey and Nancy Pelosi and their Democratic Party caucus.
Tellingly for the health care reform debate and Scarecrow’s premise in this post, here’s how Republican (and Rules Committee member) Lincoln Diaz-Balart elaborated upon Slaughter’s description of the pivotal and decisive role the President’s influence played in those secret conference meetings on the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, which forced a measure never debated or adopted by the House (or reported out of any committee) into the final version of the Senate/House conference legislation:
Mind you, I’m not endorsing that scenario and its despicable and dangerous dishonoring of the separation of powers (a scenario, rather pathetically espoused recently by Eric Massa, in which the Congress lets the President get his way simply because the President, or his surrogates, asked for a particular outcome). I’m just pointing out the current reality of how the American Congress actually operates (or fails to) today – a reality which puts the lie to the myth that Harry Reid will assert his legislative independence from White House representatives whom he’s openly and eagerly invited into his Senate office for secret negotiations on Senate legislation.
The way Congress ought to be proceeding, and why, is captured for me by former Republican Representative and Party leader Mickey Edwards in this quotation:
Top-down, secret dictates – including top-down dictates about when and how opposing Party members in on a secret deal make a bill “bipartisan,” as if that justifies the abandonment of full, fair and public democratic process – are the antithesis of democratically-derived legislative outcomes. But such dictates seem to be the only form of pseudo-legislating today’s Party-strangled Congress is capable of, as Harry Reid’s contempt for, and stifling of, the democratic process exemplifies on a daily basis.
Thanks scarecrow!
You motivated me to send the following letter to the White House today:
The Mobilization actions are successfully promoting the message that private insurers constitute the “real” death panels. Beyond, that, however, I wonder whether insurance company protests are the optimal tactic.
Such protests work best with tangible demands — ie, when a specific company is withholding indisputably medically necessary care from a specific patient. Otherwise, the demand lapses into vague calls like those used in the recent Aetna action in NYC, along the lines of “We demand that you cover all medically necessary claims.”
Beyond intervening in immediate emergencies, single-payer activists have no actual demands to make of insurance companies. We want them not to clean up their act but pack up their bags.
Perhaps we should relegate insurance company actions to the HCAN folks, who actually believe that private insurers are reformable.
HCAN protesters have been sitting in and getting arrested at insurance companies, and I totally forgive the media and public for lacking a clue as to the difference between their aspirations and those of Mobilization protesters. With undeniable but misplaced courage, HCAN protesters are going to jail for the moral equivalent of demanding that southern blacks be allowed to sit one row forward from the back of the bus.
A more urgent target of protests, both legal and possibly harder-edged, resides in the legislators and organizations openly encouraging misconceptions about the robustness of the putatively strongest PO proposals in current bills. In current Village (including, sorry, FDL front page) parlance, “robust” merely equals “Medicare + 5%,” regardless of delayed implementation, constricted availability, and hobbled scope.
Perhaps activists should be chaining themselves not to Blue Cross entrances, but the offices of Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, Jay Rockefeller, Lynn Woolsey, Richard Kirsch, and Howard Dean and demand that they stop claiming that 77% of Americans support the flaccid public options in current bills. After five minutes of education, most Americans would support straight-up single payer, but short of that, the polls show that they want a Medicare-derived public plan openly and immediately available to everyone.
How about a human chain surrounding whatever building in which the Senate/House bill consolidation takes place, demanding that the conferees not emerge without a public option that actually fulfills those criteria?
The sign I’ll hold at those protests: “Robust” My Ass!
i guess my thinking was that they wouldn’t be doing it if progressive bloggers, instead of repeating the false claims, were questioning and challenging them. (as i typed that last sentence i realized i just described stenography. that’s so depressing). anyway, that’s why i was thinking the place to challenge that was at the blogs themselves. (i’m also trying at OL, see here and here). you think that is wrong? i’m really not sure, and will happily reconsider.
the protests at the insurance companies, i do not find problematic. at least as i was seeing it, we are already convinced that the insurance companies won’t reform, but that may not be how the rest of the country sees it. so first step is insurance companies and next step is lawmakers.
sorta like protesting slave holders, demanding that the slaves be freed (while drawing attention to the human cost and conditions of slavery) even as working / protesting to change the laws that permit slavery.
do you think that is wrong?
Terrific letter. Well done. You might want to put that in your own Seminal post?
Selise, the failure of progressive bloggers and organizations to come clean about the gap between public expectations and actual legislation regarding the PO has been my recurring (possibly tedious) theme, just as it has for you.
I don’t think insurance company protests serve no purpose. I’ve diaried in support of the Mobilization actions, initially. But now HCAN, as ever, has coopted and diluted both the tactics and the messaging, so I’m wondering whether activists pushing for real reform shouldn’t at least consider regrouping and retargeting.
I don’t mind your efforts to reinterpret what I write with your own views, lest the faithful be led astray by a mere scarecrow. But you neglected to mention that the House bills allow for the expansion of the PO starting in 2015, an important fact. If may or may not ever happen, but the possibility is there.
If the PO serves the function of last resort, as I’ve suggested it might, and if the private insurers continue to discriminate via cherry-picking to discourage older/sicker folks, then it’s reasonable to expect there will be pressure on Congress to increase access to the PO. The whole point of planting this small seed is that it could under some scenarios grow into something much transformative. The industry understands and fears that, hence their fierce oppostion.
I don’t know who you’re accusing of a failure to come clean on this point. I and others acknowledged the limits from the time the House bill first emerged.
i’m pretty sure regrouping and retargeting would be followed by more of the same from hcan. although that shouldn’t be taken as an argument against. am open to any suggestions for change but i am v encouraged and inspired by the size of the mobilization.
p.s. i prefer “persistent.”
But Scarecrow, here’s where your logic fails me. You’ve just said that the industry fears and opposes the House bills’ version of the PO. And you’ve said that the WH has made a deal with the industry to kill to PO.
But you also note that Pelosi is not just maintaining but improving the PO in the House bills, with no WH interference.
How can this be? Is Pelosi in open rebellion against Obama and, as you say, “no one has noticed”?
Occam’s razor suggests that if the WH isn’t inserting its minders on the House side, it’s because they’re confident she’s doing what they want.
thank you for the correction to add the possibility of expansion after 2015. even though it seems unlikely if obama, as you suggest, doesn’t want a public option. i agree that’s important to include, but it does not undermine the point i was making (and i think your diaries support) that there is no strong public option in any of the bills congress is now considering. i think people who read your diaries would understand that, but for anyone who hasn’t, i attempted to make my case, not to reinterpret yours. i’m sorry if that wasn’t clear.
p.s. perhaps i should also haven’t pointed out where i think our main disagreement lies. imo a weak po is worse than none because it makes the after argument with right wing hard to win (gov is incapable of running public insurance program without it being an expensive failure).
I wasn’t referring to you. I’ve characterized your stance as “reality-based fatalism,” with your analogy to the Butch/Sundance cliff-leap in mind. Beyond which, do you really need me to list posts on the FDL family of blogs where robustness has been directly or indirectly defined as the mere absence of co-ops and triggers and/or the adoption, without further qualification, of a Medicare + 5% reimbursement schedule?
I should add that the WH laissez-faire attitude toward Pelosi is even more striking given that, according to Scarecrow, Obama & Co. are scared to death that Harry Reid will do something unacceptably bold and progressive if they don’t keep a close eye on him. :-)
Either that or they don’t care what she does all that much, because they expect Senate priorities to predominate in House/Senate conference.
We can disagree on which is the simplest explanation. The CW has been that the 60 vote cloture barrier is the controlling event. So if you can control what does or does not have to confront that barrier, you control the outcome. The Hamsher block says, “okay, if that’s true, then we have to change the dynamics of what Rahm does. If Obama wants/needs a “victory,” then the House can maximize it’s leverage by credibly threatening to deny it for the PO-less bill. Then it’s up to others to create the conditions in which Harry’s Senate can pass a different bill.
I think Jane and the House progressives have succeeded on their side, and the Senate liberals and repeated polls have created the conditions under which the Senate can be nudged in the right direction. The stage is set.
Applying occam’s razor, the stage is set for Obama to push through the doors that House and Senate liberals have created. But he’s apparently not doing this.
As I understand it, Your argument is that Obama is trying to force the Senate to move by using Nancy Pelosi as a wedge, and that he’s in control/approves of this strategy. It’s the multi-dimensional chess argument. This is the “simple” explanation? But simple or not, it could be true. Or flat wrong.
I expect we’ll never know, because if Nancy Pelosi and Senate liberals win, Obama will claim that’s what he wanted all along. And if they lose, he’ll blame it on Harry but say it wasn’t that important anyway because the “goals” are accomplished in other ways, so he won. Not exactly your profile in courage is it? Poor Harry.
I think so too. Obama chose the wrong team. He should have chosen people like Reich, Stieglitz, Galbraith, Baker, Krugman, Mosler, and Elizabeth Warren.
I think the real key to Obama here may be his attitude toward globalization. I think he’s a globalizer, and that his defense of the financial system and the big banks is about defending an international financial structure and is profoundly anti-democratic that he wants to preserve. I suspect he thinks that taking the big banks into receivership and breaking them up would be profoundly disruptive to that system.
And I also suspect that what is in the back of his mind is the idea that he, personally, will benefit from the existence of huge companies willing to bestow extreme largesse on retired politicians after they leave office. Bush 41 and Bill Clinton are two cases in point. So’s Jimmy Carter, who gets very little largesse from the economic powers that be compared to the other two.
Excellent comment, powwow. Very global viewpoint.
Too late. The over-hyping has already occurred, and is now necessary to get any kind of PO passed. Given the over-hyping, I think there’s little possibility that progressives will vote against a bill, such as those now on the table, with an inadequate PO. In view of this, I’m afraid that 1) and 2) above are almost a foregone conclusion. The result of both Obama’s perfidy and progressive lack of the courage of their convictions.
Giving up on single-payer, Medicare for All, was a monumental strategic error which progressives continue to perpetuate to no good effect.
That’s great. We need a movement to end all this BS we’ve been seeing about health insurance “reform” in Congress and from the Administration. Make ‘em Do It!
I think they also love to listen to Harry’s tales of his days as a boxer.
You win a prize! Sorry I can’t offer up a bonus commensurate with the value you’re adding to the discussion.
But Mao and Gingrich are correct–politics is war without bloodshed, and war is politics with bloodshed. Often, the direct approach to a policy will get you killed in the first round. it seems like this one has gone several rounds with the PO still viable and the IM on the ropes. If the intent was to service Wall Street exclusively, this might not be the case.
I’m much more one for the Sun Tzu, Art of War approach to politics. Appear disorganized to throw your opponent off, and stoke your opponent’s disorganization for your benefit.
Thanks. I took your advice. It’s now up in the diary post “Obama: The least amount of change is best. Trust me.”.
All we can offer is votes every even numbered year,,,
It’s a No-Contest loser against the daily flow of $$$ from the Corporations.
When one strips away the obama campaign crapola we are left with same old same old.
Obama’s real job is to consolidate the Bush shifts in $$$ without causing a shooting war in the lower 50.
Shorter Scarecrow;
Obama is really just another cock sucker.
All true. But it only takes one Senator to torpedo the UC-based strategy. Will one of them have the courage? Bernie Sanders? Russ Feingold? Sherrod Brown? Sheldon Whitehouse? Pat Leahy?
Also:
Is it really a “party-strangled Congress,” or is it an interest group-strangled Congress? It seems to me that the Parties have lost their capability to aggregate interests into party goals and objectives that underlie coordinated party action. Instead we have party initiatives constantly undermined or dictated by interest groups in specific interest domains, with the parties working as hand-maidens to the interests. The party system, as we knew it 40 years ago is broken. It has been overwhelmed by interest group money flowing into politics.
That OFA transcript issued by the WH captures everything that is wrong with the president’s approach. He openly pitches the “least” palatable reform package as a viable alternative and then, includes in his transcript, calls from the audience for a strong public option. It’s as if intentional mixed signalling, even at this point, is central to the WH’s message.
My suspicion is that there is a deal (as Scarecrow suggests above), and that the only way the WH will allow that deal to be broken is if the WH is presented by Congress with a fait accompli to the contrary. In other words, Obama’s WH may need cover to go back on their shady deal, hence their seeming inability and unwilligness to lead. Either they want that deal to stand (and hence the unacceptable bill to pass) or, if it can’t stand, thanks to progressive pressure, Pelosi, etc., or just general public outrage, he needs to make sure that he is able to show clean hands to the insurers. “Look guys.. I did everything I can to hold faith with my commitments to you. The fact that the PO passed isn’t my fault….”
Put another way, it seems that he is trying to keep both alternatives open and himself blameless, no matter which way this goes, and to do so, he is trying to avoid being seen to exercise real leadership on this issue (other than for the idea that a bill – any bill – must be passed). Governance by feckless buck passing.
Which begs the question, just what kind of deal was this? What was the quid pro quo? I think it must run beyond the measures mentioned above, because those were things any good bill would’ve sought anyway (community ratings and non-denial). And it can’t just be about pro-reform TV ads (who would buy those coming from the industry after all this?). There must be more to it, and I dread even thinking about what that might be.
Reid wants Obama to do what Reid can’t do–be majority leader. So Reid wants Obama to state his wishes publicly before he writes the bill. Then it becomes Obama’s job to whip the votes instead of Reid’s and Durbin’s.
Obama is right not to jump in publicly right now.
Sibelius is there because her department will have to implement whatever is passed and do it quickly so there is progress to show before November 2010. Orszag is there to figure out how to streamline the process for developing regulations and putting them out for public review. You don’t need to send three people to send a message. Besides, that is Rahm’s job. And Rahm’s job is to leak trial balloons at key points to guage public response. We will be ready to respond, won’t we?
great write-up about an infuriating situation.
I think you’re right, ‘Crow, but why?
Jesus, the guy came on like gangbusters, for progressive change, in much of his campaign. It obviously resonated with the voters who put him in the white house with NO ambiguity about it. Why funk the job now?
Why is it “multi-dimensional chess” to adopt the same leverage strategy that you ascribe (accurately) to FDL and the House progressives?
And either way, if Obama is opposed to the PO, why doesn’t he lean on Pelosi to water down the House bill so as to reduce progressives’ leverage?
Do you think that he’s too stupid to understand the leverage concept?
One would think that reading up a bit on Clinton. the DLC and their policies would wake up everyone to the reality that it is Rich vs Poor, with power being firmly ensconced on the side of the Rich within the Halls of our Government.
Need to start demanding Democracy.
I was at the event in New York in which President Obama spoke. I was very disappointed in him. No, he doesn’t want the Public Option because he is paid for by the Insurance Company. He told the audience that the finance bill would insure twenty-nine million people. In other word, shut up fifteen million. He also pit the democrats against the progressives. I think this smart man with no wisdom wamt to separate the dems from the progressives to m ake the progressive take the fall when this madate bad insurance health bill for the insurance company fails. What hurts me is, I took my grandson to the event to see a great man. Well, the great man must have spoken before we arrived.
I’ve been in several tense legislative tussles locally where the weaker have freaked out at the lack of certainty at any given moment and the lost contest as they’d lost “it,” while those who remain in control of their nerves to see the effort through have prevailed. What I see happening here is reminiscent of those experiences. There is something to exuding a cool confidence in the face of uncertainty that appeals to a broad base.
The longer this is “dragging on,” the more bad ideas fall by the wayside and the more good ideas get strengthened. The POs on the table are not capable of solving the problem and could just as easily cause more damage than accomplish what we hope. The trajectory is in our favor, our opponents are doing our bidding and demolishing pillar by pillar their case against more ambitious change.
Our next steps need to be moving this beast towards a Medicare for All approach, walking in power rather than screeching as protestors.
Right on, Ralph!
Also, I’m not sure that a majority of Americans don’t already support single-payer, Medicare for All legislation. This year the polling organizations, following Mr. Yes We Can’t, took it off their tables, as well so that polls don’t ask whether people would prefer Medicare for All to any other current alternative. Surveys in previous years show that a majority probably would have preferred it, even without the 5 minutes of education.
just some wild speculation…
assuming scarecrow’s hypothesis is correct, obama needs the insurance industry to stay on board with the deal and the only way to do that is to keep the “stick” (aka a po) at the ready. if the plan is to kill it in legislation (and not via regulation at hhs), it needs to be kept alive until the very bitter end. it could be that the house’s job is the stick and while the senate’s job is the carrot.
the protesters are not “screeching” they are articulate, passionate and courageous. if we have power, and i believe we do, then they are a big part of that.
agree about not losing “it” though.
Bam !
so very significant. erases reasonable doubt
Scarecrow, the possibility of expansion in 2015 is there in the House bill. But that’s 6 years away, and what will the cost of insurance compounded at perhaps 8% annually be then? Well before 2015, the public will have concluded that Government is an ineffectual tool for them to get relief from the insurance companies. The republicans will be back. There will be no expansion, and the progressive efforts at reform will be defeated. The current bills are too little and much too late in their possible effects.
Obama seems to epitomize Wall Street’s inebriation with short term gains. The hangovers in the past shall be forgotten in favor of forward looking hopefulness; one quarter, – 4 year election cycles are as far as that goes.
In 2012 after Banksters’ stealing, Americans without a PO, the Sherif electioneering, the rich getting richer while the statistics for the destitute will be fudged. The Democrats will vote for ‘the lesser evil’ again. Fuck you all, again!
Perhaps. But it may also be that the White House knows that interference with House processes would provoke a hostile reaction from House progressives and also knows that exerting influence in the Senate is far easier because they use the threat of filibusters as a lever to encourage Reid to sell out to the blue dogs and Republicans.
Just in case anyone here hasn’t looked at the FDL petition to Reid and signed it yet, Jane has asked again that we do so now:
“Tell Harry Reid: Stop the Silent Filibuster of a Public Option”
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/hccallthemout?source=email&subsource=fwd
Email I’ve sent to friends in TN and NY:
Please take a look at the petition in this link and consider signing it today.
“Tell Harry Reid: Stop the Silent Filibuster of a Public Option”
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/hccallthemout?source=email&subsource=fwd
And forward it to anyone you think might be interested!
If you’re interested in other petitions like this one, I have a few other links to show you.
Let me know.
Just arrived so haven’t read the comments yet, but this is what single payer advocates have been saying like forever.
When I was writing the entry on the healthcare debate for my Obama scandals list. I was surprised that right from the beginning Obama was hedging in ways that look much like what he is doing now. In other words, he really hasn’t changed his position. It is the perception of everyone else as to what that position was that has changed. People gave Obama a very large benefit of the doubt, which has proved unwarranted.
What I also found was that the White House deals with insurance, pharmaceuticals, and medical companies were key to Obama’s philosophy about how to approach the whole debate. Obama got promises from each of these to “save” x number of billions over 10 years. Now we all know that they weren’t worth the pixels used to write them out but in exchange for them Obama basically gave away the store. This wasn’t simple stupidity but a deluded belief that these players would “honor” their word. But there was also an ulterior motive. Obama and his economic team have wanted to go after Social Security, but especially Medicare since they walked through the door into the Oval Office. Now there are places to cut in Medicare but for them this was only an excuse. They started finding hundreds of billions of dollars (over the ten year time frame) of “savings” in Medicare. But if such savings were realizable, why the sudden news that they want to increase Medicare premiums?
In any case the public option was never part of Obama’s real plan for healthcare, hence the numerous attempts to kill it.
And also because they’ve decided that there is no chance that House progressives will reject a “health care reform” conference bill, however ineffectual it may be.
Obama doesn’t lean on Pelosi because she’s the shiny object. He fully intends to throw her under the bus when he doesn’t need her any more.
As long as there is hope, after all, the peasants keep saying please sir may I have another.
They don’t pick up their pitchforks until all hope is gone.
Obama voted a gazyllion times ‘present’ while in the Il. Senate. Look at the record before you piss away your vote.
I have had those thoughts about the Speaker’s efforts as well
frankly Swopa, I think some of the WH players are arrogant enough to think they can get the CPC to fold as they always have – not that some of the usual suspects (eg Schakowsky) wont fall all over themselves for triggers – but I think the WH has miscalculated here
What Obama wants is single payer. I really believe this. He is allowing the process to take place
I think you can stick a fork in Harry unless he decides to put a PO he can claim is robust in that bill and then challenges the opposition to get the 60 votes needed to take it out. Of course, they can always refuse the UC agreement. But if they do he can then use reconciliation or the “nuclear option” to pass a bill with a good PO. It’s in Harry’s hands.
That’s short enough to twitter.
That’s what I want to know, Swopa. You don’t have to be THAT fucking smart to design the kind of strategy you’re talking about (not that you’re not extremely smart, btw).
It makes at least as much sense as claiming that Obama at this point in his presidency is Bush II or worse.
Harry Reid is like the pathologist performing JFK’s autopsy in a room crowded with generals and men in black, packed so closely their stars and fedoras fell off in the crush. They thought they were protecting us, too.
Poor “tough” Harry can’t make a move or come to a decision without first asking his night visitors whether he has permission to do it. Lap dogs can be comforting on dark and stormy nights, except when they piss in your pants. When the people have one as their guard dog in the Senate, they can be assured that their farm has just been auctioned off for pennies on the dollar to the local bankster.
It’s a funny thing about the law and economic regulation. The state doesn’t have to ask the permission of those it regulates before it regulates them. If they fail to follow rational rules that achieve a legitimate public purpose, they can be fined or put out of business.
This Democratic administration exhibits the opposite behavior. It is acting with its corporate supporters in the way it demands Harry Reid act before it. It’s asking permission for a pittance of reform in exchange for protecting their profits.
That “protection” will come at a large cost to taxpayers, larger than credible reform, larger even than if the insuresters took their marbles, stopped doing business and went home and the government had to “dump” everyone into the briar patch of Medicare. All for a little Chicago-style protection money, donated to Democratic coffers and a paid for
Mission AccomplishedReform We Achieved banner thrown across the White House portico.Could be. But whatever he does not do, the insurance companies will still flood Republican coffers with their money and deny it to Democrats if a strong PO passes.
So, what good does it do for Obama to hide and then claim he didn’t go back on his deal. He’d be better if he suddenly pushed for single-payer, Medicare for All, tanked insurance company stocks to a fraction of what it is today, and cut off their campaign fund by making them too poor to afford such expenditures.
Good post. Even if there are no side deals, anytime the nation’s and party’s leader isn’t leading, he’s the problem.
He didn’t seem to have many problems pushing and pushing hard for Congress to get legislation out blocking release of the torture photographs. He wanted the torture covered up and lo and behold, he got what he wanted and got it fast. If he wanted the public option, we’d have it.
Unless you think Congress is just way more amenable to becoming participatory in torture cover ups than it is to providing its constituents and the nation with an economically viable, morally responsible health care system.
Oh.
Wait.
Nevermind.
and no one (that I’ve read) but Jane has mentioned the Culinary Workers and their consistent calls for a robust PO in this drama -
the Majority Leader is caught between Barack and a hard place
what’s it gonna be Harry ?
Is there a tipping point for Obama True Believers? He’s escalating in Afghanistan (echos of Nixon), poured billions into the hands of the financial fraudsters and is defending the excesses of Bush’s Security State (When’s he gonna close Gitmo? Ever?). What will it take to come to the conclusion that Obama simply is not a progressive reformer but a true blue Establishment player who won’t buck the system.
Fantastic post. This is the key issue remaining for health care reform: Why is the White House acting so weird? What did they promise?
That, or maybe the WH tried to control Pelosi, and she told them where they can stick their “help.”
Maybe Pelosi is proving that she can’t be walked all over the way Reid apparently can.
Don’t think anyone is stupid. The WH repeatedly did try to weaken the House bills. It used the BlueDogs to extract a weaker PO from the one committee where the liberals were vulnerable. Rahm and Sebelius repeatedly tried to undermine the PO with their happy trigger talk; Obama himself kept saying how this wasn’t the critical piece, and he said that again to his OFA supporters: keep your eye on the prize, he says, while telling them that “even the bill you least like” has all these good things in it. He didn’t say, “even the worst bill has some good, and we intend to make it even better.”
The WH also tried to argue the House bill didn’t meet the goals — that’s when we heard that the 2nd ten year also had to be deficit neutral and that the money had to come out of the health system (Snowe’d mantra, too), which was an attack on the surtax.
Can we find even one statement from the White House saying it really preferred any of the House provisions on any major issue? But we saw huge amounts of praise and deference for the Baucus process, the Baucus efforts, the wonderful Republicans who were being so constructive (by accusing them of killing grandma!), the great step forward for the Baucus bill and how it was to be the framework. And now he tells his fans, “even this bill you hate the most is a great bill.” Maybe I don’t understand this occams razor thingy.
Could be. But is the House really controllable?
From my Obama scandals list entry, Obama on single payer:
If true, then how stupid were the progressives who agreed to take Medicare for All off the table in favor of the PO?
Huh? How does what he’s doing lead to single-payer?
nope. we’re just “shrill purists” doncha know
and far, far too many of those making calls in earnest yesterday will be ‘clapping louder’ in the event we get some WH/Big Insurance monstrosity
The self-deception, the self-destructive hubris, the costs and privation that followed Bush’s claim to have won the battle for Iraq (but then lost the war of occupation), Obahma & Rahma seem determined to repeat as they “reform” health insurance in America in the interests of health insurers.
Mr. Bush seemed too oblivious and self-absorbed to be aware of how he and his office were abused by his constitutionally powerless stand-in, Dick Cheney. Mr. Obama might be accused of many things; not knowing precisely what he’s doing could never be one of them.
No. I think you understand it very well.
Hard to disagree with that.
It’s been painfully obvious from the start that the WH was obeying corporate masters.
It’s frankly disgusting that we’ve had to be told to take one for the team over and over again or years, and when we finally are in the position of power, we keep getting told to take one for the team.
No more, the line is drawn, Obama can give all the flowery speeches about the billwe don’t like being good, but I no longer trust him and I’m no longer buying it.
No compromise. Kepp pressure on Obama, and make sure the WH knows we’ll hold them to every single campaign promise they made, and if they think we’re not crazy enough to support a 3rd party candidate they’re not understanding how big of a betrayal this is.
Betrayal, that is the word for what Obama is doing. Obama and the white house betrayed us.
the even more troubling question is Why ?
that these archly cynical bastards would flim flam my single mom with two chronically ill children neighbor in pursuit of some 2010, 2012 campaign contributions master plan should tell us everything we need to know about just who we are dealing with here
Why bother too hard when the Senate is so much easier to control? It is much more closely divided than the House. Its members, flaccid as they are when it comes to protecting the common weal, are protected themselves by six year terms of office. And on this issue, a majority of left and right agree that we should leave our poor defenseless insuresters alone; they haven’t made as much money as Goldman Scratch yet.
As I said, people wanted to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, they wanted to believe the rhetoric, and they read much more into that rhetoric than was ever there.
They weren’t stupid for believing in Obama. They were being used. As they realize that, they are falling away from him. It is some of the big public organizations like HCAN and MoveOn that should have known better or at least sooner and that are persisting in their support regardless where there is a problem. This too is not about stupidity but a cynical manipulation of their membership.
Thanks – finally someone has said it – Obama is the issue. Who knows why but he is the one stopping the public option. The Senate, Reid included will do as they are told.
This is just like Don’t ask Don’t tell and the Defense of Marriage Act. Obama won’t be doing anything about them and never planned to – he is and has been lying to us -
All true. But as long as we’re not going to compromise, why not just go back to single-payer?
I disagree with you. This has less in my mind to do with our belief in Obama (I never really had much of that) as our belief that the strong PO presents the economically and politically viable solution regardless of whether the president is prepared to lead to get it done. Medicare-for-all was, in my mind, never viable, given the underlying cost-growth issues in the existing program. I have gone over the numbers over and over again, as have many others, and it just doesn’t make much sense. Other single payor models are economically viable but politically nearly impossible to pass. VA-for-all/system nationalization may actually be the most viable economically of all options, but has huge political and social obstacles (there’d probably be riots).
I do not believe that the House Medicare-rate-based PO is impossible to pass, even now, although the president’s lack of leadership makes it that much more difficult to achieve. We need to keep on pushing to get it done in the House and in the Senate. And we need to hold politicians, up to and including the WH, to account for failing to do their part.
So, a corrupt deal is what we get from Mr. President Changey Hopey. OK. Need grass roots effort to elect a better Congress next election.
Your title put an image in my mind.
“Lipstick on the insurance status quo.”
Jon Walker has a new cross-post up: “Mark Udall And Michael Bennet Call For Up Or Down Vote On Public Option”
I hope you are right.
and speaking of archly cynical bastards . . .
if anyone else was suspicious of that oh so last minute show on providing anti trust accountability -
portions of the Veal Pen are out cheerleading Reid’s efforts for same in a new campaign ad today
who’da thunk it ?
If true and there is no strong public option because of WH deception and manipulation then Obama must be challenged in the primary.
I think it’s part of Obama’s guiding notion of protecting the global financial system.
If you are correct and Obama has betrayed the electorate on the Public Option, it will be the end of the Democratic Majority in 2010.
Not doing it publicly in order to allow private negotiations to continue.
Not doing it publicly yet because the Senate bill is not complete.
Not doing it publicly because Harry Reid needs to stand up for it himself and not look to Obama for cover.
I think that Obama will not go public until the House-Senate conference bill is going back to those chambers. Then he will pronounce it good and worthy of passage and twist arms to get it passed.
We better make sure that the Senate allows that conference bill to have a robust public option. And that all members of the Democratic caucus understand that joining with the Republicans in a filibuster has sever implications on their future chairs, seniority, electability, and party support. People power must push to the end to see that money power doesn’t win.
Oh yes, it’s gonna be hard. But not nearly as hard a real climate change bill, or honest-to-goodness finance industry regulation (where Barney Frank is giving away the store), or the Employee Free Choice Act. Of those priorities, healthcare reform requires the least heavy lifting by building public opinion and exerting public pressure.
we really need to figure out what that deal is (presumably, a corrupt deal, but I can always be proven wrong, I hope). I am convinced that there is one, and also that it has to be worse than we’ve imagined so far. Any leakers? Please?
Paging Howard Dean! Paging Howard Dean!
Hugh, I believed in Obama too, but that never blinded me to the folly of taking single-payer off the table. In politics unilateral disarmament isn’t practical. Opting for the PO as the leading edge of health care reform was a form of unilateral disarmament. It was short-sighted and stupid. Note that I’m not saying that compromise on a Hacker-type PO is stupid if it’s necessary. But leading with it and agreeing to take single-payer off the table was stupid.
Spot on. The writing is on the wall for all who want to see it.
The Ignani op-ed is interesting.
Blub, ralphbon said it best back at #9. And thought it has already been cited by others it bears repeating again. There is no strong public option on the table:
I think there’s a way of reading these things that makes Obama look like less of a villain while acknowledging how weak he’s been. I think the White House reasoning goes like this:
1. The Supreme Court is about to make a decision that will direct mountains of corporate cash straight into the campaign finance system.
2. Corporate cash follows corporate cash. Screw one industry, and all others will turn against you.
3. In elections, money means more than mobilization. In fact, judging by 2008, money is mobilization. Better to piss off your base now – and maintain the means of riling them up again later – than piss off big donors, especially over the next three quarters of fundraising.
4. If Congress can make a PO happen – if the only alternative to a PO is a veto – then that alone will provide adequate protection against the ramifications of points 1, 2, and 3.
Bottom line: I do believe Barack Obama wants a public option. I just don’t think he believes in himself or the Democratic base enough to risk anything to make it a reality.
I just hope Rep. Grijalva and the progressive block can hold together. They’re indispensable to real reform.
Because he’s a lying phoney! He’s from CHICAGO for chrissake! Everybody wake up. O is the pawn for the Giant Powers. Period.
I’m certain Obama is a free market enthusiast opposed to any form of the public option and I agree with selise’s warning @ 17 that a weak public option will produce some evidentiary support for the argument that the government should have no role in health care reform because it screws-up everything it does. I don’t like our chances for moving toward a single payer system several years down the road, if that argument is used against us and our response, even though truthful, is the public option isn’t working because it’s too weak, but we promise it will work if we strengthen it. Therefore, a public option now (uhm, that would be 2013) must be strong and perform well enough to make people demand more of it. Anything less would be a disaster.
I believe Obama was shocked, dismayed, and angered when liberals and progressives plugged-in, figured out what he was really trying to do, and called him out. So, in his speech to both houses of Congress he defended the indefensible insurance companies as good hard working people just trying to make a profit and he labeled us the bad guys by calling us stubborn “ideologues” blocking progress toward reform.
Now he’s scrambling to find a palatable solution to the Senate that does not violate any of his backdoor deals with the honest, decent, and hard working members of the insurance company death panels who, thank goodness, won’t be forced to kill as many people after the mandate kicks in and provides them with more money to pay claims.
Reid is clueless and welcomes all the guidance Rahm can provide. Pelosi is smart and sees what’s up. She sees a disaster in the making and is distancing herself and the House Democrats as far as possible from Obama and Rahm so that they can say we did all we could.
Selise, I wish one senator, at least one senator, would get angry enough to have a truthful moment and admit to this.
To me it is so obvious and has been so for months. But we’ve still got Obama out there saying he supports the public option. I wish that just one journalist would ask him, point blank, if this deal was made with the insurance industry and if he has bargained away a true public option.
Also, thanks for more good references. I have Shock Doctrine but not Stiglitz’s book, nor have I read the article. Stiglitz was in the Frontline documentary last night on PBS which was excellent and highly recommended for anyone who hasn’t seen it yet. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/
First of all, how do you know he is NOT leaning on Pelosi to water down the PO? All it takes is phone calls from Rahm and these might well be happening. Secondly, the House historically caves to the Senate in Conference and O is probably betting that House Progs will roll when presented something, -anything, that has the word PUBLIC OPTION stamped on it. Will Progs have the nerve to say NO to an ineffective piece of crap? That is the question.
you really have no idea what you’re talking about. none.
Great post. Great comments. Thank you.
“Why isn’t the President demanding it, pushing it, selling it? Well, maybe he doesn’t want it.” There’s no maybe about the fact that the President won’t risk anything to get it (unless he has to get out in front of the inevitable, which isn’t really much of a risk.) The only question in my mind is whether he’s actively participating in Rahm’s strategy: (1) pre-compromise single-payer and cripple the public option, and (2) deliberately cripple progressives in congress. Double header win for Rahm.
“I expect we’ll never know, because if Nancy Pelosi and Senate liberals win, Obama will claim that’s what he wanted all along. And if they lose, he’ll blame it on Harry but say it wasn’t that important anyway because the “goals” are accomplished in other ways, so he won. Not exactly your profile in courage is it?”
Exactly.
We’ve heard Nancy breath fire before, only to accede pathetically in the end. There may be enough at stake politically to keep her fired-up. I’m guessing the key will be whether Rahm can keep the lid on guys like Wyden, Rockefeller, and Dodd on the Senate side.
Don’t know if this is relevant: I have written to my Senator (Kerry) and several others urging them to privately let Reid know -
No strong public option, no cloture
Maybe I don’t understand the process well enough and this isn’t possible.
I agree that to be robust, a public option must be open to everyone and begin enrollment immediately, not in 2013.
Sounds good and dovetails nicely with my “we are gaining strength from the stubborness of facts argument,” but I don’t think we do ourselves any favors by not understanding that O is part of the enemy and must be forced just like the others.
While I can appreciate the inner workings of what might be going on behind the scenes, I’m not going to believe anything I read or hear until an actual bill is passed. The reaso I say this is because I don’t know how Obama thinks he can get away with this. Reid’s ass is already on the line in Vegas where he’s likely to get his ass handed to him in the next election. If he can’t put a strong public option in the bill he’s gone. The Dems will get their asses kicked in 2010 and Obama will get his ass kicked out of office after just 1 term. See, by then we’ll have found a suitable replacement. Hm….President Rockefeller?
Harkin “the public wants it 3 to 1″
“the dance of legislation, the smoke will clear”
“there will be a bill on the President’s desk by Christmas and there will be a public option
That would take GUTS, the ability to withstand WITHERING attack from multiple sides, and an FDR sense of history and respect for JUSTICE. None of which has O displayed to me.
Because every single House member is up for election in 2010. They need the cover. They have to be able to vote for a strong public option.
Nancy will say that the House did their best, but the Senate messed it up in conference. As usual. And then try to tell everyone that we still have a victory. This is the way it always happens. Remember the “cram down” bill?
Nancy is playing her part too. Or at least this is what I think. I don’t see her standing up to Pres. Obama. I don’t think she would cross him.
If Obama came out and said (he has certainly insinuated) that he supports a public option would that not fuel the teabaggers and other extremist responses?
only time will tell in the mean time push
Good analysis.
I don’t know of any Progs who “agreed” to take single-payer off the table except perhaps some members of the veal pen. The rest of us saw that this was “the game” right here, and that the battle was effectively lost at that moment.
Obama and the blue dogs are all that stands in the way of passing HR 676, which is by far and away the best and least expensive solution to reforming health care.
The Republicans are a non-factor, but that will change after the votes in next year’s election are counted, if Obama and the Blue Dogs snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, which they are determined to do.
I agree that Obama is a free market enthusiast. He came of Age when the Democrats’ were losing faith in Keynesianism and he lived through the Reagan and Clinton success stories. The Bush 43 travesty was a counter-example for him. But, by nature, he’s a cautious centrist tinkerer and probably believes that the market has no problems that a little regulation won’t cure.
So what?
Given the polls, their opinions and loud noise don’t matter.
You fail to realize not what’s at stake, but who’s willing to do sit-in’s in a quasi-police state? The people I see getting arrested at these things are “professional protesters” or people that can afford to -
a) Go to jail without any fear of finding a parking ticket or some other tiny infraction that could have you staying in the gray bar hotel much longer than a few hours.
Having been in jail myself for a short amount of time, I don’t know about you, but if your in a local Sheriff’s cell, it might not take long, but in places like “Twin Towers” it takes more than HALF A DAY to be released!
b) This is a disorganized effort over P.O.S policy. Name which “Public Option” is the most “Robust” or “Strongest” and post its details, is it a carbon-copy of Hacker’s suggestion? To my limited knowledge its not, so why are we spending so much energy on getting this past?
I’m totally fine with a failure of Federal Reform because as I have said, States often solve problems because they have too and there’s no other choice because they have to have a balanced budget. If Single Payer becomes painfully clear for States you will see Bills on the floor of at least 10-15 States in 2010. What better way for Maine to push back against Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield for its ridiculous law suit.
Also this objection to Opt-in/Opt-Out makes no sense at all. If we in fact to live in 1, 2 maybe 3 Americas then if the most Progressive parts of America are growing frustrated with the more Conservative parts and is getting tired of saving them from themselves, then we should allow these more Conservative States to twist in the breeze and allow them to block Federal Public Funded Health Care Insurance from their people and watch what happens.
Why is it more important to pass weak laws, only to revisit them again?
Just when would they be revisited???? Next year is mid-terms? Won’t be 2010. 2011 would be the ramp up for 2012, little chance of getting anything done there and what about Climate Change, Employee Free Choice, etc, etc?
Look we’re talking about a country that outspends militarily more than next 14 countries combined. We have serious budget issues, no wonder its turned into a fiscal debate more than a human rights debate.
There’s only one answer and that’s Single Payer Health Care. If we have to reboot this thing and do it right later, than so be it. Or if we have to do it like Canada; State by State (Province by Province) then that’s far more preferable than watered down law created by Corporatist Democrats.
Pelosi might hold her ground and frankly, I would love to see them take on Wiener’s plan and replace the wording with HR676 and force the Senate to kill Health Care Reform and then FDL and Act Blue should spend ALL its time finding opponents to those that oppose (for whatever reason) reform.
Nor to me. I have no expectation that he would do this. just sayin . . .
Too late for them. Voting is coming fast and the polls show that the PO has been gaining steadily. He no longer has to fear the right. he has to fear us and the possibility that the progs will defeat a poor bill and he will get nothing at all.
I don’t buy your argument, Scarecrow. What is the Whitehouse getting from the insurers that it doesn’t have already? The GOP is shambles, and it’s too late for Harry and Louise to smear the bill. The Insurers shot their wad early. I think it’s a con. Obama wants to keep them quiet and fearful that if they push to hard there will be a public option, and then in the end doublecross them by getting the public option. If you are going to be Beltway cynical, you might as well go all the way.
The veal pen has a lot of powerful orgs in it. HCAN took it off the table. Move On took it off the table. DFA took it off the table. Also, many progs in Congress have taken it off the table saying the President doesn’t want it. My own Congressman, Jim Moran, who at one time was a co-sponsor of HR 676 was one of those who took it off the table. Even the many of HR 676′s co-sponsors won’t vote for it on the floor.
I’ve left the door open for that option. Keep them from a full on attack while the legislation is going through Congress, and then put in the public option at the last minute.
The one thing that makes me doubt that theory is the campaign money though. I believe that they think that money = election every time.
And it also might make regulation of the finance industry more difficult — or at least he couldn’t use the same strategy with them. One thing we have to remember about the health insurance industry is that they are part of Wall St. and/or heavily influenced by Wall St. too.
Tea Baggers have gained NO TRACTION. Approval for reform is back to where it was before the August break. The reason is hovers around 50% I firmly believe is because we’re talking about legislation that’s not quite what we worked so hard to put in 60 Senators and give the President’s Office to Obama.
Its the Pre-Compromise to ????
That’s the PROBLEM, if Obama said “We’re going to get Single Payer done this year and I will make sure it will happen!” But that didn’t happen, even if he’s said it before….
This is not Obama’s Waterloo, that’s ridiculous, but it will be a sign of how Progressive this WH will be and weather or not we need to go even further left to get things done.
back at you with thanks for the recommendation. i didn’t watch the pbs program, but will try to catch it on line. sound goods. the lancet article on privatization is really good (i was thinking at one time of writing a diary on it — as a warning re sumers and with klein’s and stiglitz’s books as background sources. one of the many many things i haven’t got around to doing and probably never will… ) and it is, or at least was, on line. although i don’t have the link handy at the moment.
here’s one of the protesters, from yesterday’s democracy now!
not a professional protester. the issue of injustices in our healthcare non-system has affected many people personally.
also, there is a link to donate money for bail, training and legal support if you are (as i am) worried about people who can’t afford it going to jail.
i remember fisa. the house pretended to write compromise legislation and then passed the senate’s version — both times. and both times the house leadership manipulated the rules in order to pass the bad bill (with a majority of dems voting against).
corporate globalization as foreign policy. i agree. but he’s not the only one.
I’m a psychologist with 40 years of training and experience. And I still have most of my marbles, I believe. Yet Obama mystifies me. Is he just an eloquent psychopath? Possibly. If so, he sure fooled me last fall. The way he talked about people’s pain and how he was going to bring about change, he sounded like he really meant those things. But then he won the White House. And suddenly all those moving stories about people being harmed by unjust laws and ruthless practices virtually stopped. Except for a few rare appearances, the inspiring leader disappeared. And yet that side of him is still there. Like this past week when the White House decided that the insurance industry was violating the terms of their secret backroom deal by releasing the Price-Waterhouse-Cooper report on predicted premium increases under Obamacare. Out came Obama as Lincoln once more. I couldn’t believe it first. I flipped on the TV one night. And here was Obama in a You Tube talk–speaking so compellingly of the suffering of ordinary patients under the current health care system and why it was (now?) so important to “review” the present exemption of insurance companies from antitrust laws. “Where have you been, Barrack?” I thought. And then awful reality really hit me: “This guy can turn his empathy off and on like a faucet.” And I have no doubt that if the insurance companies start playing ball to his liking once more, all this compassionate talk about the plight of patients under private insurers and the need to impose antitrust laws will end in a heartbeat. But what does this say about the man? If Obama’s a psychopath, I can live with that. We’ve had plenty in the White House before. But psychopaths have a tendency to get grandiose and overestimate their ability to talk their way out of anything. And that’s my fear with Obama. If he is the psychopath he seems to be, he may think that he can shaft the American people when it comes to health care and home mortgages and all sorts of other things–and still convince voters in 2012 that he’s never wavered in fighting in their behalf! I know that sounds insanely arrogant. And Obama doesn’t come across (at least to me) as that arrogant a man. But if he’s a psychopath, he may actually be thinking that he can hypnotize the American people into believing anything. But I’m really not sure I’m on the right track here or not. Like I say, for all my training and experience, the man is still a mystery to me. And I really would appreciate hearing from Scarecrow and other savvy folks on this site as to what they think Obama thinks he’s doing–and if he thinks he can really pull it off.
I know. But he’s the President and we can hold him accountable for that.
Why when there is so much knowledge of what is transpiring, is there such a lack of faith in the power of a dedicated electorate to impose it’s will in the passage of legislation. Once you surrender this faith than your subservience to the likes of Obama and Reid, cynics of the worst kind, is guatanteed.
Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding, a strong movement from the left can exert its financial muscle and be a force to be reconed with.
The view that by not adopting a single payer plan this go round and instead settling for a smaller but still workable version in the form of the PO, somehow precludes trying again and again is based on self doubt not in some law of nature.
Action to support the PO in the form of financing our supporters and to oppose our opponents,is still available to us. No illusions about what Obama and Reid are should be entertained, as nothing more than compromised lackeys of entrenched interests.
So much is riding on the passage of the HCR that it will reflect the true measure to which the public is willing to be subjugated and made to swallow what is against its own interest.
I agree (I think). I’m really more interested in the here and the now. I’m also glad there are folks thinking strategically.
I posted a couple references to ideas in #3. Those are potential patches to a very imperfect bill in the works, but they could do as much if not more than a weak po in containing costs while keeping the basic, flawed structure of the current ‘system’ intact.
Hu gamd521, You said:
I don’t know anyone who holds that view. I do hold the view that if we pass any of the PO bills we now see in the two Houses of Congress our chances of getting good reform that helps anything will be damaged. The association of progressives with these inadequate bills will destroy our credibility for the future since the rationale that they were better than nothing will not be available to us. For reasons stated in many previous diaries of mine, I strongly believe that we are currently in the situation where progressives need to oppose all the bills on the table and either get much stronger POs or go without reform this year.
perhaps because they fetishize the logic of Least-Worstism? After all, a tiny, paltry, insignificant PO that takes effect in 2013, and maybe can be expanded in 2015, is not quite as bad, arguably, as doing nothing!
Just like voting Democratic, no matter what catastrophes they perpetuate, is is not quite as bad, arguably as some other options.
Empathy is a frame of mind, an ability to understand the world through someone else’s perspective and to have emotional sympathy for them and their needs. Effective lawyers have the the first part, an ability to imagine the world through their client’s eyes. But that’s a rational, not an emotive process. It makes them effective advocates; it doesn’t preclude empathy, but it isn’t empathy. Mr. Obama is demonstrating his ability as a lawyer to argue for his client’s (or his) need of the moment.
Mr. Obama exhibits a politician’s run-of-the-mill pathology. He is insincere, hypocritical, disingenuous, manipulative and possibly predatory. He avoids straight answers to straight questions because he never knows when he might receive an offer to change his mind that he can’t refuse – help, money, non-disclosure of inconvenient truths. He negotiates without revealing what he wants, without telling his public supporters who his private supporters really are, without telling them what he would really fight for. His is the behavior of a well-dated sexual partner, who really, truly, honestly, cross their heart, hope to die believes what they say, just not for very long.
Mr. Obama claims to be pragmatic, not ideological. Those are not opposites. Being pragmatic is a means to get what you want; having an ideology would reveal what he wants or how he might try to get it. Mr. Obama’s is the pragmatism of a rubber band that will wrap itself around anything, not the courage of a political leader willing to stand for something. For the first time in his life, he’s being quite ordinary.
Mr. Obama has used his considerable intellect and charm acquiring political power, but in an understated way that avoids the pitfalls that often block the careers of people of color. That may be what and all he wants.
By FAR the best “positive” minded analysis I’ve read so far.
Thanks, I was becoming way more depressed than I need to be.
*G*
Others have asked and answered this one:
When has the lower house EVER prevailed over the upper house on an issue?
THAT is what worries me most.
Great post, as always. But I’m not sure, bottom-line, that you’ve told us “why” the WH probably doesn’t want a public option. And this is critical to my continued support of them and, perhaps, of the Democratic Party as a whole.
Is it as simple as “faced with a choice between corporatism and the public good (assuming, as I do, that the two are not synonymous), they choose the former and will always choose the former”?
Or is it because they are engaged in a larger strategy designed to benefit the public that will become knowable only over time. In other words, have patience, we’re not at the end-game yet?
These are the pivotal questions, in my mind. Perhaps they’re unanswerable at this point. But I think we need to have a clue so we know what to do in the future.
Thoughts? Anyone?
Dear Outwest:
They choose the former and will always choose the former.
they have for at least 20 years with isolated and minimal outlying exceptions.
Belief in this as a premise for supporting the White House – in the absence of overt, committed support for the needs of Americans rather than a few corporations – requires a faith not open to mere mortals.
The early church made Thomas a Doubter and an exemplar of foolishness because he remained grounded in the real world of his own experience, and because the church had no facts to support its claims. For those content to receive their just desserts in the hereafter, that approach works. For those who’d like to have their needs met in this life, something more concrete, such as open commitments and consistent support, should be demanded.
Progressive, professional, proactive…
ProCare!
Medicare for the uninsured? I could use that now! So could a few million others…
This administration is HUGE dissappointment. Obama is a HUGE disappointment. Where is his leadership? Why wont he even utter the words public option without cowering like a child? Its sickening and pathetic. This man had the opportunity to take this country far if he would have just stood up and spoke his heart…not the language of politics. What happened to his campaign rhetoric on health care? There is no excuse. There is no grand plan. There is an immoral and evil insurance industry buying off our leaders to keep killing people while raking in the dough. Its that goddamned simple. And Obama is either in bed with the evil industry or too weak and frightened to stop em. either of which is unacceptable.
We were fooled folks. Obama fooled us into thinking he would be an FDR and instead is just a corporate humpin lackey. I knew something was up when he fucked us on the FISA vote but I wanted to believe once in office he would show conviction and leadership. I and millions of other hopeful voters got fooled again…same as the old boss.
remember the “Man from Hope”?
The Democrats have been doing this to their gullible, faithful supporters since 1992, at least!
the barest of cosmetic changes usually suffice for the faithful to come out and support another new Boss, then whoops! same as the old Boss.
time to change this cynical calculus in the only way we can – stop supporting politicians who govern against your interests, who ladle out obscene amounts of welfare to their malignant corporate paymasters!
I don’t normally make threats, however, I’m sooooo pissed about the Shell drilling in the artic thing, along with the gas exporation being allowed in Utah (AFTER THAT ACTIVIST PRACTICED civil diobedience and bid in the auction with no intent to pay) that if it turns out that scarecrow is right, I will willingly endorse any OTHER candidate and bad mouth the administration at every opportunity I get to whoever will listen!!
Oh. You mean the Obama Administration.
I think this has much to do with getting most of his campaign money from Wall St. All the largest Medical Insurance companies are also traded on the New York Exchange. When it looked like the PO was defeated, all stocks in that sector when up…
That’s why he’s been generally soft on reforming Wall St. They are interconnected to the Health Care Industry, which could be why they took Single Payer off the table from the start.
Like I said I wouldn’t mind a reboot. If we need to pass Campaign Finance Reform and boot out all the those who oppose not only Health Care but other Progressive causes then so be it.
And if the Republicans think they are swoop in and clean up, they got another thing coming. If they think the far right will win, they won’t. They will support Ron Paul, the problem is they don’t have enough numbers to get him beyond Primaries, so they’ll prop up some easy to beat WingNut.
On the left, we need to start pushing the Labor Unions to form a Labor Party or prop up one of the larger socialist movements.
The larger problem is the middle of the country, so I really see the issue of Health Care Reform more of a solution to be solved on a State by State level. Yes the poor and the minorities will suffer in those Red States, but they’ll have to get it together and either make the migration Northeast, North or West or Push their States in a more progressive direction.
I’m already making plans to become one of the 1.3 million that live outside the United States and don’t pay US Income Tax. Because why support a country where if you don’t support things like Corporate Welfare and the Military Industrial Complex, yet would be put into jail because you won’t pay your taxes? Rich people get away with it (well maybe no longer) why can’t I?
Nope I’ll go someplace where my tax dollars actually work for me because for all the moderate Conservatism that’s happening in France and in Germany currently is it political suicide to rail against Education, Health Care, Public Transportation and the like.
Your post certainly makes a lot of sense. And you may be exactly right. Obama may just be an exceptionally good lawyer and politician in terms of how he behaves. But that is not how he makes people feel. When people hear him speak about gay rights, restoring the rule of law, standing up for swindled homeowners, providing affordable health care, and the like, he makes them feel that he really cares about them and their pain in a way that no politician in recent times has been able to. That’s what I’m alluding to. When I compare him with even as masterful a politician as Bill Clinton, it seems to me that the difference is not just one of degree, but a difference in kind. I’ve lived under 13 Presidents now–starting with FDR. And I really thought when I campaigned for Obama that here was a man of courage and principles. Millions of us did. Not since JFK can I remember a candidate inspiring such idealization. I wish that someone could help me understand that.
There is plenty that I have not been happy with in regard to Obama’s style. But He is a constitutional lawyer. He actually believes in the separation of powers and the process. And if he comes out and makes his stand the that would empower the whacks and teabaggers. Have you been listening to his weekly addresses. This last one was not the first time that he has hammered the Insurance companies
Our job is to stay vigilant and push. We are going to witness Medicare for Everyone.
I am extremely disappointed in the way Obama has been continuing to roll over to Israel
We need to keep pushing. As Obama has said “make them do it” Call email, make an appointment with your Rep or Aides at home or in D.C. Push
I did not said it leads to. I said I believe that is what Obama actually believes in. He actually came out and said this once. But then added that that is not what we are going to get…..now
he is a constitutional lawyer who supports gov secrecy to cover up serious crimes including murder and torture. he is a constitutional lawyer who supported telco immunity for violations of fisa. i could go on and on, but you get the idea. we have no evidence that he believes in the separation of powers, we have plenty of evidence for the issues of torture, fisa violations, etc.
what bill are you talking about? obama took single payer off the table (sara robinson said, on ian masters, that progressive activists/think tanks/media were warned not to push for single payer or suffer loss of donor support) and the rest of the dems and their allies dutifully followed along.
re: “make them do it”
here’s my rough transcription of the relevant bit of sara robinson’s interview with ian masters about a month ago:
He actually came out once and said single payer is a good system and then added but that is not what we are going to get….he did not say “now” but I really think that is what he believes in.
Democracy Now does a piece on health care, military cost (so far 915 billion on the wars in Iraq and AFghanistan)
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/21/cashing_in_the_war_dividend_as
Cashing in the War Dividend”: As Healthcare Reform Limited by Deficit Concerns, Military Spending Continues to Grow
As lawmakers hash out the final details of legislation to reform the nation’s healthcare system, one of the key questions is: How much will it all cost, and how will it affect the federal deficit? While $900 billion over ten years may sound like a hefty price tag, it is a mere fraction of this country’s spending on the military, which is expected to grow by at least $133.1 billion over the next decade. [includes rush transcript]
I agree that he is way out of line here. And it is pathetic that he is not stepping back and encouraging justice to take place in regard to torture, the false pre war intelligence and the telecoms. I agree.
You are absolutely right that he is not applying his constitutional lawyer status to some of the most critical and deadly issues that people should be held accountable for. I agree
Who said these things?
How the fuck do we know what kind of pressure people deal with when they get themselves into these positions? President. The Insurance Industry is a powerful force to be reckoned with.
I hate how Obama has rolled over on the Palestinians, telcom wiretapping, torture, accountability for the false pre war intelligence.
Do I think the Dems along with Obama should have pushed the single payer card much more. Absolutely. They did not. We are going to get Medicare for Everyone (uninsured before this is over with. That is what I think. We disagree
Possibly single payer down the line
Maybe Occam isn’t the best descriptor. Maybe it is Holmes who best describes it–”Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how unlikely, must be the truth.
There are many who just are not prepared to view Obama in this light.
If Obama really did this..clearly fucked up
‘rolling over’ implies that he was once right side up.
any evidence of this, besides florid campaign rhetoric for the credulous?
he joined the Senate, and picked Joe Lieberman as his mentor. ’nuff said.
I see. It was all slipped in so fast and so quietly that I missed all those maneuvers. Thanks.
the hcan related (moveon, etc) pre-compromise to take single payer off the table was last summer (or possibly earlier, but it was announced in july 2008). was a big deal among single payer activist organizations (pda, pnhp, cna/nocc, healthcare now!, etc) but to my knowledge that protest was not covered in the progressive political blogosphere other than in some diaries and comments. iow, it was easy to miss.
yeah, sara is in a position to know but it’s still second hand.
i agree that we don’t know what pressures, etc are happening behind closed doors. but that is why i try to just pay attention to his actions and try not to guess his motivation (i confess i do it sometimes anyway, but i still think it’s a mistake because we just can’t know).
if you hope for single payer, medicare for all, that is great. but i don’t think there is evidence to claim as fact that “We are going to get Medicare for Everyone” from this congress this year. opinion, sure. we all have them and i wouldn’t try to deny you yours. in fact, i hope you are right!
Gams, your prose is getting tighter, punchier and bloodier with every post. Huzzah!
Hmmm. Funny post. Years ago, when Mikhail Gorbachev was prominent in the news and coming to the US for the 1st time the big question was “can we trust him? Is he telling the truth.” NPR conducted an interview on this subject with a police psychologist (I believe) and they discussed various trust-challenged personality types, -psychopaths, congenital liars, car salesmen, etc. The final question asked was “are there types of people who can successfully lie, time and time again and consistently get away with it?” The psychologist responded “well. . . . yes. They are called Actors.”
There is a reason Ronald Reagan was so successful. He too sounded like he gave a damn but we all no he didn’t.
The reason I sounded the alarm on O way back when was that I happen to know that anybody really sincere, who truly intends to work on behalf of the people at the expense of the Great Powers, will NEVER make it past the 2nd primary. Otherwise Kucinich or Nader would have actually been contenders. These candidates are thoroughly vetted long before the primary season gets under the way and they must make it clear that they will NOT present a real threat to the established order. So, if you observe someone deep in to the primary season, who moves you to tears with sweet oratory; be not mystified as to the true character of this individual. Simply acknowledge that you are witness to a particularly . . . good . . . . actor.
via Ian Welsh we have another “Digby gets it!”
its Digby, so its Firepup safe!
but she does say that the Democrats plan for individual mandates could be a “monumental debacle”.
I couldn’t have put it better myself!
but even worse than forcing middle class families to tithe 50% or more of their disposable income to the insurance cartel, passage of a botched ‘reform’ bill could hurt the (D)’s electorally! oh noes!!!
I agree. But as an old Italian Brick Layer who I met in Denver Colorado back in 1970 said to me about the two parties ” you have any food crumbs in your pocket? Here is the deal the Republicans will steal those crumbs, the Democrats will leave you a few. That is all you need to know”
Nader, Kucinich too good too honest to make it.
It’s posts like these that make me prefer this site over DKos.
DKos has a much better layout and comment system and more users though. It’s sad we largely don’t see honest posts like these on the most popular “liberal”/left blog. When criticism does pop up and it gains traction, the people behind such posts/diaries are often attacked relentlessly there. All of these points should be obvious to anyone paying attention who is not blinded by their faith in one person, Obama, or a party. I repeat these similar points on DKos, but I’m by far a minority there.
For some, no. They aren’t interested in principles and policy first, they want a hero to put their faith in and a winning team…err party they can cheer for. They’ll make excuses for him left and right and change their position on issues as he does. Remember Bush’s 20%? That’s not unique to the Republican Party base.
Funniest post on this thread!! Wait, you weren’t joking were you? You can come out of the cave now and stop watching election campaign video clips non-stop.
Well said. Couldn’t agree more.
My theory is the scuffle was mostly theatrics since it was spreading to a wider audience that the president had made back room deals with the health care industry in the beginning. People who said this before weren’t taken seriously, then the WH visitor logs were released (not voluntarily btw) and more public figures started including this in their analysis as well. So, what better way to mislead or confuse the public on the relationship between the WH and the health care industry than a mild scuffle between the 2. The HCI releases easily debunked reports, Obama goes on the offensive publicly. “Look, there is no way they’ve made a deal. He just laid the smack down on the health care industry!!!”
Ain’t gonna happen. The American labor unions are notoriously pro-corporate. They were supported by the government to help crush the true labor unions in the early 20th century. Labor is weak because these labor unions never wanted to be big and push too hard against the establishment. They felt they could make victories for specific groups of workers by largely playing nice. Labor unions elsewhere were much broader and sought to unite workers across various crafts and skills, and did not have faith in the corporations.
Better make that move quick. If the value of the dollar continues dropping as expected, only the filthy rich will be able to afford to move out of here to a nicer country. I currently live outside the US, and had initially planned to return, but all the shit hit the fan while I’ve been gone and now I’m honestly scared to return. Family is the only reason, or if I’m unable to obtain a visa elsewhere (fine atm).
My concern with Europe is the neoliberal EU. It may soon be headed by Clinton and Bush pal, prince of neoliberals, Tony Blair. The European ruling parties, including the dominate left parties, which moved right/neoliberal over the past 20 years, have mastered the art of pleasing the public, while secretly working to help the powerful. However, as a citizen of those countries, I have more hope for change within most of them than I do of the US. Also, I wouldn’t mind living somewhere where the visual landscape is interesting, artful, rather than disgusting strip malls and chain restaurants.