Obama: "I guarantee you...we are going to get health care done."

is a far cry from saying that we will HAVE one and that he will fight for it.

excellent description of what's going on .."Psych Op".

he's the one working hard behind and in front of the scenes to get this done.

He's already said it six ways from Sunday and I take him at his word.

for those seeking insurance

meaning - it will be there - but no one is forced into it - you can keep your private insurance

Too many corporate interests have already poisoned it.

Good to see him using the tactic.

learn.

But just "something" is not enough. And getting a dramatically insufficient, or worse setback, bill passed and signed into law doesn't necessary serve the needs of the American people.

There's the hope that something can be passed now that contains no setbacks and a few small gains and try to build on that in the future. A while ago I wrote about how it doesn't work that way, and that when you settle for something that isn't very good in the short term with the hope that you can make it good later, that later never comes.

Well of course I should have known better than to make absolutist claims. Now, I used concrete examples of times when we were told to accept something dramatically insufficient now with the promise that it would be built on in the future, only to see twenty years and counting go by with zero political will to do anything - family medical leave is one concrete example.

However, I was appropriately reminded that social security came in pieces. When first passed it did not include the disabled and a whole range of other persons and that its full scope was added to social security over time. So its possible. But a couple things to remember about that.....

First, it was roughly 30 years, nearly a generation, before some of those desperately needed changes to social security were addressed - that's too long. When it comes to health care, we can't afford to wait 30 years for changes that we need right now - both for individual lives and for our economic sustainability.

Second, I was able to provide numerous examples of when it does not work that way. It is not the case that weak bills are always made better in the future, or that it can happen on within the timeframe that's needed. Sometimes its critical to fight when the fight is at your doorstep, and not try to put it off.

So.... the we will get this done at all costs rhetoric, while in someways exciting, is worrisome when it is combined with all the weak, capitulating nonsense coming from democrats, and when it is combined with the administration's own refusal to clearly define, point blank, what must be included in a health care reform bill that will be signed and not vetoed.

- Must cover everyone or veto
- Must ban denials based on preexisting conditions or veto
- Must ban dropped coverage based on medical need or veto
- Must cap consumer out-of-pocket expenses at x% or veto
- Must include a full public option, medicare equivalent, or veto

But no... instead the administration doesn't want to go one record saying anything so that it can claim its "delivered health care reform to America" no matter what piece of shit bill gets passed. That's a big concern.

Too many in Washington treat all of politics as if it were a game. The sole goal of the political game is to help our team (the ones in the blue jerseys) win. It's not about doing anything good for the American people. You can hear this sentiment all the time, even on DU.

"You must be a freeper who hates Obama if you don't support what he's doing"

"DK is a whiner. He should be supporting the President."

"If we don't pass health insurance reform, we will lose in 2010."

It goes on and on. They just want to win. They would rather pass a horrible bill that hurts more Americans than it helps just so they can say "Obama won."

Their only core belief is that their team should win. I suppose they have some values (if we can pick up 20 more Senate seats and 50 more House seats then we can pass solid, liberal legislation!), but they always believe that "winning" must come before working toward the actualization of those values. In the end, their values are completely overwhelmed by their desire to "win" at all costs, and to hell with the people.

I saw a thread earlier in which Rahm was screaming at the leaders of liberal organizations saying, "We are 13-0 going into health care." Rahm was mad about ads being run by liberal organizations against conservative Democrats, but you can see his mind-set. 13-0? Like a football team that's having a killer season.

It's a game to him. I hope it's not a game to the President.

:dem:

-Laelth

every bit of his job very seriously.

and Big Pharma such a huge windfall..they will likely step aside and let real reform come "down the road"..wtf are people thinking..or are they??????


The Ed Show - Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) - Single Payer, 676...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MWDwvjETyo&eurl=http%3A

"it's about what is left".......Kucinich

800 billion dollars folks..800 billion dollars..and who is serious and believes if this is not done now and done right..we will get jack shit down the road??????? That is delusional.

Obama is on record with statements in support of the House and HELP bills and has said the bill must include a public option

Now you can speculate about what you think will happen, but you can't say that he hasn't made definitive statements.

not....the bill must include a public option

When asked, point blank, whether or not the public option is a deal breaker, he's refused to be pinned down in the last month.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4024316&mesg_id=4024394

If these guys are right, this is a done deal. Public option was just a cover for the Blue Dogs, never a viable part of reform. Basically, everything the Dems are doing is to keep the Health Care Industry MONEY flowing to the Dems and not the republicans. The fly in the ointment is that the progressives are standing up to the Party and fighting back.

That's more interested in waving the pom poms than taking the more painful path of honestly looking at what's going on in Washington :(

He is.

While his administration goes out and calls it non-essential. Instead of, I'll veto any bill without a public option.

"we are getting this done"

.

...sideways.

:P

triggers??????? co-ops??????? public option..and in exactly what form????????????

I can tell you all day long ,..i am getting my freaking house clean..and just make the bed..or wash one dish..that doesn't mean i am really getting my house clean!

You are really that simple minded?? do you think the masses will just go along with a promise..we are going to get it done..wtf are they going to get done?????? I want the freaking details..maybe you are happy detail-less..but most of us aren't that simple minded.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/08/20/why-does-seius-andy-stern-sound-like-rahm-emanuel/

Why Does SEIU’s Andy Stern Sound Like Rahm Emanuel?
By: emptywheel

snip:

It's bad enough that a guy who usually has just as much fight as Rahm is telling ABC that he'd be happy with triggers triggers are a better compromise than co-ops.

He signaled that a more acceptable compromise might be to create a public option whose creation is only triggered if certain circumstances are met.

"It's obviously better than no public option," said Stern.

Triggers, of course, are Rahm's favorite gimmick. And Andy-who-sounds-like Rahm must know that triggers mean people who need healthcare now won't get it until two years beyond whenever this finally gets implemented--years and years down the road. So answer me this, Andy-who-sounds-like-Rahm? Do you really think delaying health care for millions is going to solve the problem you enunciate about winning in 2010?

"I think we're talking losing control of Congress," said Andy Stern, the President of the Service Employees International Union. " would totally empower Republicans to kill all change."

"It's hard to imagine the Democrats convincing the public that Republicans are to blame for health-care reform going down when the Democrats have such large majorities," he added. "After last year's promise of change, voters will start feeling buyer's remorse."

You're telling me people are not going to feel buyer's remorse if the Democrats take that same large majority and tell them they can have health care, but only after their current, pre-existing condition either bankrupts or kills them?

"Oh, sure, we lost Dad when good healthcare could have saved him, but we still love the Democrats because Rahm asked so nicely for that two year delay in the guise of triggers and the rest of the Democrats gave it to him."

No?

it's such a generalized statement - it could include any number of things. Co-ops. No public option.

it's just more of the same empty sloganeering that Obama has employed all along. Hope. Change. Words that mean different things to different people.

When is Obama going to take the lead on this issue? When is he going to spell out what he will or will not sign in a bill?

health care.
Mandated health insurance---with deductibles, premiums, co-payments---is not mandated health care.

define done down?

What passes this fall isn't going to be single-payer, so there will be more work to do.