So the plan was always to be Romneycare? What was all that public option stuff? All the other stuff?

From the CBS transcript of the 60 Minutes interview:



So why did we have all the drama? What was the reason for all those meetings? And I thought the bill was crafted by the Congress?

What ought we anticipate on the bush tax cut extensions?

If I am misinterpreting any of this, serious, respectful refutation will be respectfully considered. If you just wish to come into this thread and snark, don't expect me to even acknowledge you.

K&R

Good questions

(too.)

of lefty groups to agree to ignore a single payer solution and to dangle the so called "Public Option" to the fishes. Even Baucus did it. He said, "Americans don't want another countries system, (code for no Canadian Style single payer) Americans want an American solution." He had the words, "Public Option" displayed plainly in his white paper but he knew from the start that the so called "Public Option was a bargaining chip. What the "Public Option' meant wasn't very well defined except that it was said to be very good. So as it got bargained it started shrinking.

Many followed the bright shiny object all the way into the boat, unfortunately, and we lost an historic opportunity to educate people about why they are being ripped off for health care. And we lost our best issue traded out mostly for a Repo non-solutions.

It really was bait and switch from the start. I'm glad to see that President Obama has better analytical skills than many of our local partisans and since he was there, I trust this will put this debate to rest.

Repo health care reform done by Democrats. Not a pretty sight. And not a pretty outcome in terms of the elections.


And I still find the legal requirement to purchase a product from a private corporation that legally bribes our law makers to be extremely onerous.

or bring back Hillary, and lose running her instead.

You have a choice.

and advocated it right here.....
Why not?
You obviously ain't got shit to lose....
and isn't that what counts in the end.

Wow.

with the INCUMBENT Pres Obama. Alan Grayson couldnt even win reelection in his own district. Nothing at all against him, I love him, but we need to get serious and stop thinking whether we like Pres Obama or not. He is our best hope in 2012 and we need to quit the bickering and get busy assuring his reelection and more importantly, getting him some support in Congress.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'd have to think long and hard about running for a second term. I think the next campaign may make 2008 look like they were playing patty-cake with the repukes. And unless they expect to win the house back, he will only be spending four more years beating his head against the wall. If he is our best choice, I hope he runs, but it is going to be absolute hell and for what, to avoid being labeled a one term president? That said, God help us all if the repukes win the WH.

Worst. Time. To. Be. President. EVER.

The Repugs have this locked down and there is no chance in hell that Obama will win in 2012. they and their outsourcing punk countries like India will pour an ocean full of money into trashing him and there's nothing we can do. Face it, our country has been taken over by the right wing, courtesy of SCOTUS, they control the major media and have an agenda, and face it, we are not part of it. They want to end education, end birth control, end Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and take us back to the dark ages where they will be nobles and we'll be serfs.

If Rick Scott could win governor of FL, when everyone I know, even lifelong Repugs, voted against him - there is no more hope and the only change we'll see is a roll back of all rights and benefits for the common person and more welfare for the rich.

I'm tired of voting for the more moderate republican. 2012~Dean/Kucinich~2012

governing the country. This is true no matter how much you claim otherwise.

dysfunctional system with two good ol' boy parties that are wholly owned agents of those that are forcing our citizens into anxiety, poverty, and homelessness.

The parties' no longer matter, we must alter our thinking and realize it is class warfare (non-violent warfare) and unite around something other than party affiliation. But hey, how about you keep doing what you've been doing, and try expecting a different result.

Ignore function exists in part because there are certain people you cannot win a fight with.

Use it on some of these, and believe me, you will be Better Today!

As for one thing, I cannot see anything in your statement to disagree with!

Woo hoo.

Fool me once...that's the only chance you get.

I hate to come to the defense of Frenchie but she has a point here. Much as I dont like it, we must realize our best chance to win in 2012 is with the Incumbent President. Otherwise we will get Jeb Bush. I hate best of poor choices but that's where we are.

There is the argument that we go for it and try to get someone really progressive thru the primary, even if it splits the party, but our chances of success are slim to none. And we may have to live with the consequences of a possible Republican president.

I say we need to get busy working to reelect Pres Obama and getting him some progressive Democratic help in Congress.

Please dont take away my "Im a secular progressive" bumper sticker.

We got RickGunn local senator to Raleigh after having a dem for years.
Brad Miller seems to be really getting on the ball our rep to congress, but we still have Burr for senator and Hagen is not exactly progressive. I would have loved to see Elaine Marshall in burrs spot.

And I'd rather go down fighting rather than, once again, settle for the lesser of evils.

:boring:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If a Republican administration had passed a law (against the will of the majority I might add-see: Polls) that required you to fork over 3 or 4 hundred dollars a month to a health insurance company (not the government through taxes, mind you) or face fines and penalties from the IRS you would probably be just as supportive of that law as you are this one.

Wouldn't you.

Romney Plan. Seems I remember some excoriating folks for daring to say that. Drumroll and apology , please!

But until you get enough of your fellow citizens to vote for the Socialist Worker's Party or the Green party or whichever floats your boat, I would think Democrats were better than Republicans. Just see how much we get in the NEXT two years, when the past two were not enough for you.

The Ds are the party to the left. It will only go further left if you stay in it and the number of people that far left increases. Where are these people going to come from? Talk about Democrats not selling their message. To date in this country's history, no party to the left of it has succeeded in selling enough of its message to be more than a nearly irrelevant side show.

This is politics - you are affected by the people you are surrounded by. You can't vaporize the Republicans and turn them into left wingers. You can't vaporize the centrists. They will vote.

This reality is getting by you. You expect the leaders of a party to just convince the other voters to do it your way. None of us can think like that and stay sane.

That is the choice. You can't beat somebody with nobody.
Obama is the best choice in 2012.
But, it is my view that the political class is out of control and ungovernable - not the country. The problems do have workable solutions; but, the political class does not want to consider them; does not want to enact them into law.
This includes both parties.


There is a question which the political professionals never ask: whay are people so alienated from politics that 40 to 60% do not bother to vote?

Right now voting for Obama feels like voting for a 1980's Repug. If you aren't going to help us in urging him to ACT LIKE A DEMOCRAT, then step aside.

And you're not even defending it, you're deflecting.

We all think he is dreamy, but can't you think of a single thing that he has ever done that disappoints you? Can't you begin to try to attempt to make a effort to see that some people don't equate dreamy with effective, that some people are unhappy with some of the things that have been done and left undone so far. We get it that you adore his every breath. Why can't you get it that some are pickier.

Let's try it this way. Say you have a lover or partner who you care for and about. Then this person does something you don't like. (I know, I know. Obama hasn't done anything of which you disapprove, but we are going for reality here.) Now suppose the thing the partner did was something that went against something you really believed in, something that meant a lot to you. Just because you ask your partner to stop doing it (spitting on crosses, making fun of the handicapped, wearing fur, anything that might irritate you) doesn't mean you want that person to die or go away. You just want them to do better, to live up to the person you thought they were or could be.

Is it possible for you to see outside of your fantasy? To understand that some of us are pissed about some of the things that the president has or hasn't done and want him to be better without wanting his demise? If your partner knew you were vegan and insisted in eating raw meat in front of you, you would want the partner to stop. But that doesn't mean you would take up with a butcher. Please tell me you can understand. Then maybe you could cease the knee-jerk "so you want palin for president" crap that is so old and so tired and so infantile.

have the independence or integrity we need.

the republicans can sit back and criticize the hell out of it to incite their supporters and they got the bill they wanted and didn't have to risk anything to get it passed.
this is why the idea of "post-partisanism" is so fucking ludicrous at this particular point in time.

Who passes a law that gives the opponents things the opponent wants without the opponent even voting for it?

Harry Reid has got to explain that to me.

kabuki dance, total fucking bullshit, or whatever you want to call it.

We've been HAD!
Quelle surprise...

The first chance the administration had to deliver on the promise of "Change" they reneged. Instead of fighting for Medicare for all (which would have had huge public support) they said, "No we can't."

just saying.

Republicans opposing a bill they would have approved if Democrats hadn't pushed it.

And Democrats supporting a bill that is essentially a Republican bill.

:banghead:

No change there for a very long time to come, unless at least 60% of the people suddenly decide they've had enough and they won't take it anymore and collectively start a nation-wide hunger strike for two or three weeks max.

Two weeks, three max, everything stale, and the greedy politicians will do anything that collective movement will tell them to do.

Otherwise, forget it. Nothing stands a yes-we-can chance of changing.

First, there are differences between Romneycare and HCR. Half of the insurance expansion under Obama's HCR is through Medicaid. That's right -- of the 31 million newly insured, half of them will be using a government run program.

Second, Romneycare is called Romneycare because Romney signed the bill, but it passed out of a Massachusetts state legislature with 8 Democrats for every 1 Republican. The legislature played a huge role in shaping the bill, and the resulting product was significantly changed from Romney's initial proposal.

Third, our healthcare system was so broken that even a plan signed by a then-Moderate-Republican was actually much more progressive than the previous status quo. The previous status quo was just that bad.

it's also Nixoncare with some Dolecare on the side.


To say that the plan signed by a then-Moderate-Republican was actually much more progressive than the previous status quo shows how far to the right we have gone. A "moderate" republican plan is too socialist for the GOP but Democrats cheer it on as a rousing success. Oy.

No, it shows how bad the previous status quo was.

How is that not a move to the right?

Such as a massive redistribution from the healthy to the sick, hundreds of billions of dollars spent on a government-run plan (Medicaid), etc.

Whether or not certain Republicans supported parts of this awhile back (or signed a Democratic-legislature's bill into law with parts of this) is not relevant to the question at hand.

saying that.

Since he didn't get the public option, it only makes sense to paint it as a middle of the road plan to try to win over the middle. That doesn't mean he would have dumped the public option even if he had a chance of getting it (notwithstanding the other conspiracy theories out there about Obama being a Manchurian candidate agent of the insurance industry, etc).

Obama to Endorse Public Plan in Speech
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125240777810092069.html?mod=rss_com_mostcommentart

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/15/obama-takes-up-public-hea_n_215736.html
Obama Takes Up Public Health Care Option In AMA Speech

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/20
OBAMA: PUBLIC OPTION NOT DEAD....
""I absolutely do not believe that it's dead," Obama told Univision's "Al Punto" of the public option's fate. "I think that it's something that we can still include as part of a comprehensive reform effort.""

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_09/020034.php
"In the last week, however, senior administration officials have been holding private meetings almost daily at the Capitol with senior Democratic staff to discuss ways to include a version of the public plan in the healthcare bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) plans to bring to the Senate floor this month, according to senior Democratic congressional aides."

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/reid-to-announce-opt-out-public-plan-today
"Senator Reid Announces ‘Opt-Out’ Public Plan"

are a few of a tens or hundreds of examples.

If a Democratic president wants true health care reform, it has to be the first thing on the agenda that trumps all. Directly after the election is when a president will have their highest public support for such a reform. Obama had 77% support for a public option and pissed it away because he waited too long.

I've seen arguments that the economy was a bigger problem, and thus Obama made the stimulus his first priority. He should of waited with the stimulus, it would of passed no matter what.

WHAT??? HCR basically killed cooperation with the Republican party for spending. They wouldn't even vote for unemployment benefits for months, which cost less than 5% of the stimulus. The stimulus would have been completely and utterly dead if it didn't pass when it did.

painted the picture of Republicans as people who want to see the economy fail. He could of hammered Republicans with their TARP vote, which was essentially saving the ass of the rich, and arguing that the working-poor and middle-class didn't matter to the party of wealth.

The stimulus barely passed as it was. One of the 3 Republicans that voted for it had to switch parties, since he would lose a primary otherwise.

You really think Republicans give two shits about an Obama "painted picture?"

convincing the American people.

Besides, if Obama put together a stimulus bill and Republicans failed to pass it, people would see their lives getting worse and blame Republicans, as long as Obama kept up the pressure.

Seriously?

You started out with cogent arguments. You have now devolved to "nya nya, so are you."

Perhaps you would be better served to go back to the thread you started on this same subject.

popular.

We're talking past each other it seems. (Not you -- the poster I was responding to.)

a message and stuck to it. They managed to take 77% public approval and turn into less than 30% public approval. That is how Republicans won, they didn't win by not voting, they won by convincing the majority of Americans that it was bad policy.

Republican leadership was on TV everyday, three to four times a day, with the same repetitive message. Where was our leadership? Tell me, what did Obama do to counter the Republican message to the masses? He wasn't on TV nearly that much touting HCR, but he could of been.

That is fantasy.

as long as public support stayed above 55%.

He waited too long and let the Republicans get the upper hand.

You should watch this, it's quite informative: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamasdeal/

along with it. He waited until public support had eroded before finding his voice again, but by that time it was too late.

If this was part of his first 30 days, Snowe would of voted for it. But Obama just didn't strike fast enough, or loud enough.

representation?

The general idea is that the PEOPLE vote for the people whom they believe will best REPRESENT them on the national stage.

Congress passes laws - but the idea is that they support or fight legislation based on what they believe best represents their constituencies.

Granted, Congress hasn't actually done that for a long time now, but it's pretty telling that you support the de facto oligarchy we have allowed to develop.
That may be why you feel that people are talking past you. They are working from the position of a government where representatives actually represent - you are coming from an entirely different direction. There is no dichotomy in pointing out what the people find important when discussing Congress, BZADem, because that's what Congress is supposed to do. Represent the people. The only one having trouble with that concept seems to be you.

Thank you. That is entirely my point.

I would love it if Congress were receptive to the people's wishes. Me pointing out that they are not does not mean I don't want it to happen.

Congress is not receptive to people's wishes for certain progressive policies because there are always enough people who want such policies that still vote Republican anyway. Until people wake up and that changes (and we get 60 real progressives in the Senate that will vote for progressive policy), real progressive policy will be extremely difficult to enact.

Maybe if they only get 1 term, they'll worry more about passing good legislation and less about keeping their fucking job.

That's my thought-they get 1 shot to do it and they're outta there.

don't realize it) consistently vote Republican. It doesn't matter who the candidate is -- they'll just always vote Republican.

Though regardless, to pass term limits, you need the current incumbents to amend the Constitution to term-limit themselves. That isn't going to happen.

people flooded their phone lines and inboxes over the Bailout, Congress listened and voted against it. Then, Goldman Sachs and other Wall St. Goons threatened Congress to go back and vote again or else there would Martial Law.

Congress should have told this to the American people BEFORE that vote. But to say they will not listen is a fallacy. The only reason they don't listen is because we always have too many people protecting them, trusting them to do the right thing.

Apologizing for them, making excuses etc. etc. If we are organized enough, angry and determined enough and we don't listen the likes of Rahm calling a democratic process a 'retarded idea', we CAN influence them as was demonstrated already.

They are OUR representatives, NOT Wall St.'s and to give up and accept them representing Wall St. just because they do, is what is ludicrous AND the cause of all our problems. Now we know the deal, we are no longer naive and if we were to unite and fight, they would have to choose between who they want to anger the most, millions of Americans or a few corrupt Wall St. bankers.

Now is the time to start organizing. There is 'but we have an election coming up so 'shhhhh'' excuse.

and it's "could've" as in "could have" contracted, not "could of".

and gone on national TV to explain his position and ask Americans to lobby their Blue Dogs and Republicans.

In other words, shown some spine and some PR savvy for a change.

so please stop with the b.s...ok??

Obviously was never important to him, just a tool to get elected. He cares more about Repugs than his base. I said it before, I will not contribute to him again! I will contribute if MoveOn wants to run a great commercial, but not a dime personally to him, DSSC or DLC. They've proved where their loyalties lie, and we don't matter to them - not rich enough.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/21/obama


http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/72375-lieberman-expresses-regret-to-colleagues-over-healthcare-tension-


http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html&OQ=_rQ3D1&OP=348edbfQ2F4Q25OQ514oQ60eVQ7CQ60Q60G_4_55f45Q3C4Rx4EOI-GE4Q26Q60-,en4RxEOI-GE%29EGc-


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

Sorry, I don't see any other explanation. Anyone who pays even passing attention to the Republicans' operating procedure knew how they'd respond over the last two years. They *always* put their party ahead of their country, and they would never, ever, give their opponent a political victory, even if he's pushing their own legislation. Of course, if you're pushing your opponents' legislation, it kind of negates the whole idea of voting for you, but that's neither here nor there.

So we're left with two possibilities:

1. Obama prefers Republican policies. All his talk about a "public option" and real healthcare reform was just election year bullshit, which he dumped in a backroom as soon as he could, replacing it with a Republican plan.

2. He's so moronic that he not only believed the Republicans would work with him, but continued to believe it for two years, even as they proved daily that they would not. Of course, someone that stupid could never even dress themselves, so that option's pretty much out.

The absolute most that you could plausibly say is that it is a more expansive version of a plan that an 8-1 Democratic state legislature enacted and that a Republican governor (of Massachusetts, not Texas) didn't veto.

Which is really besides the point. If Obama were proposing the exact same policies/appointments as CURRENT Republicans are proposing on each issue, then your argument about "why vote for Democrats" is at least coherent.

But that isn't true even limited to the Healthcare issue (let alone on all issues). Republicans would never today propose a national ban on discriminating on the basis of pre-existing conditions (a huge, progressive transfer of wealth from the healthy to the sick relative to the status quo). Not only would today's Republicans not propose that -- they would BAN states from doing it. That's right -- the current Republican proposals would have the effect of preventing Massachusetts from banning discrimination on conditions.

So Democrats want to ban insurance companies from doing it -- and Republicans want to not only allow insurance companies to do it, but they want to BAN states from forbidding insurance companies from doing it.

You cannot plausibly claim that what passed is at all similar (or even in the same direction) as what the Republicans would pass if they were in office.

All this ridiculous huffing and puffing from the republinazi party that Obama's some type of ultra-lib, when he's been continuing a lot of the Bush policies.

We don't need the GingrichCare of mandated, unregulated, for-profit insurance that is still too expensive, only pays parts of medical bills, denies claims, bankrupts and kills people.

Republinazi '93 plan:

"Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005."

"Any proposal that sticks with our current dependence on for-profit private insurers ... will not be sustainable. And the new law will not get us to universal coverage ...." -- T.R. Reid, The Healing of America

I just can't.

n.t.

Obama has no one who he can work with.
There is no one in Washington who has the political and moral courage to do what is necessary.

And, he knows that he does not.

You ca't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

He could have arm-twisted the Blue Dogs to kowtow to the Progressive Caucus instead of arm-twisting the Progressive Caucus to kowtow to the Blue Dogs.

from personal experience and work experience, I have encountered very few professional politicians that I respected. Few said or did anything to earn respect. I found the permanent civil service employees to be of a much higher quality than the "pros". They actually wanted to help and serve the public. And succeeded in doing so. That is my personal experience, for what it is worth.

The pros are, first and foremost, interested in gaining office and keeping it.

HALF of the insurance expansion comes from a government-run program (Medicaid). That was not the case at all in Romneycare. Obama's bill expands a government-funded, government-run program by hundreds of billions of dollars to serve poor people.

So HCR is actually quite different than "Republican policy," even if you assume Romneycare is somehow "Republican policy" (as opposed to policy passed by an 8-1 Democratic state legislature that was merely not vetoed by a Republican governor of Massachusetts, and significantly changed from what Romney wanted).

paying now. They are making cuts right and left. What magic medicaid fairy is coming to increase those budgets?

expansion until 2017, at which point the recession should be over.

:shrug:

We haven't forgotten.

Are you suggesting that President Obama never bothered to read his own party's platform, or are you revealing that you have not?

A CLEAR victory for the status quo.

When speaking of a part of the direct quote cited above, they wrote:



As they see it, Obama's plan was not just Romneycare, but a plan just like *other* republican proposals, too. This makes the detailed comparison to Romneycare sort of off point.

panel. I think Howard Baker was part of it too.

Anyone to the left of center-right was not invited to the table.

were in power.

It reminds me of when Orin Hatch was asked a question: why did he support an individual mandate in 1993? He basically said that he was just proposing a plan to kill Hillarycare, and that he never would have supported it if it had any chance of passing.

The truth is, Obama's plan is more expansive than all of the Republican plans proposed in 1993. And even the most expansive Republican plan in 1993 was by a small number of moderate Republicans, who are far more liberal than the most liberal Republican today. And even THOSE plans would never have been proposed if they had any chance of passing.

but now I am sure plenty will step forward to tell us that Romneycare is actually a very good thing and we should be glad to have it.

It was another case of needing industry buy-in. Insurance companies loved the idea of a public option (contrary to popular DU belief) because they could dump all their sick people onto it. Hospitals hated it because it did not have dedicated revenue and so it was going to end up costing them a lot of money like Medicaid does.

Publicly they wanted to be seen for the bill, but eventually their false support was exposed when they hired Karen Ignani to funnel millions of dollars into a campaign to stop the public option.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamasdeal/

The 1996 Republican caucus.

Now they've got it.

At the very least, there could have been an emphasis on more public-run hospitals and financial support to build them.

Going through the motions.

Sideshow.

Pabulum.

Buying time.

We wouldn't realize we got screwed until we woke up in the morning.

:sarcasm: Somehow I doubt we are "fixing this later".

amirite?

I don't think this is chess, it's three card monte.

I guess that was the genius behind it not being full in effect till 2014. So there would be nothing tangible the Democrats could run on for 2010 if it were successful? Will Americans be able to afford these insurance rates? Way to hand the message to the Republicans.

the committee bill, offered a clearly middle of the road first pass at insurance reform, is on all policies a centrist...that he STILL gets blamed for not reaching out to the other side AND gets blamed for shortcoming of bills that are directly related to how centrist or right-leaning they are!!

So, what we can expect on bush tax cuts (or more appropriately, the bush tax increases) is that Obama will strike some deals and the middle class will get their tax cut and the richer will get richer for a couple of more years...but Obama will be blamed for insufficiently stimulating the economy because all the rich dudes are uncertain about the future and can't count on their extras hundreds of thousands of dollars coming in in three years. Watch.

And those programs were created with at least some Republican support which we had none of for this legislation. No Fox news for those either.

I am expecting the same thing to happen here. We will get to where we want to be but it will be done incrementally.

Don

How did we rid medicare and social security of the giant parasitic corporations that controlled them back then. Oh, that's right, the corporations weren't in control. Imagine that.

The comparison is bogus when the current legislation was bought and paid for by lobbyists working for the very corporations that are killing tens of thousands of americans each year.

now that more repugs are in the house. Doesn't anyone still wonder why Paulsen and Bernanke are still there? Goldman Sachs is well represented in our government. Did the AIG bailout only take three to four days (under little boots) to be approved and did that money find it's way into Goldman Sachs? I'm waiting for the US treasury to be downgraded and the boys on wall street salivating to get their hands on more government money or OUR money in the form of privatized social security. They're nothing but gamblers, gambling on how far down mainstreet will go.

Some of you can defend the health insurance corp. bill, but it's more shoveling public sector money into private hands with very little or no regulatory measures. Now with the emboldened repugs, it will be more rape and pillage of the people--you wait and see!!!!

... you have a talent for cutting through the bullcrap and asking the pertinent questions. I see we have the Apologista Patrol trying to spin reality. We were played. They know that they played us. They also know it pisses us off. Now they will try anything they can to divert and deflect our attention away from how dishonestly they have treated us, whom they owe their jobs to. It's not working.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Treasury as well as the Medicaid obligations to the states that they haven't a prayer of keeping up with long term or if they do it will come at the expense of other critical efforts.

that we had suspected all along and that was the fact that the health insurance industry and big PhRMA were in charge of the whole process. Advocates of single payer weren't even allowed an equal seat at the table. They were arrested and otherwise treated like pariah, not citizens with a contribution to make to the debate. I have hopes under Jerry Brown and a Democratic majority in California that we will pass single payer health care in the State and the rest of the nation will follow in time.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

better than the Apologia.And to think the Obama Campaign sent us door to door campaigning against Clinton and the mandate! And now the current answer is to "compromise" more. I guess that is because it "worked" so well!

that sometimes, when Rham, Hillary, Obama and Gibbs were scheming away, every once in awhile, someone started laughing so hard they couldn't stop.

And then it was 8 hands slapping 8 knees until they could regain control.

Har de Har Har

The conspiracy theories and wound-rubbing about the PO need to stop.

I seem to remember the WH saying that he did not run or campaign on the P.O. He seemed to be pretty quiet through the summer of Town Hall tea party assholieness and single payor advocate incarceration. I seem to remember the faithful insisting he was doing the right thing not inserting himself in the debate d/t it being all Congress's job etc. In fact, he seemed to not say too much until Sept/Oct. when he made a town hall kind of speech where he sought to reaffirm his desire for the insurance industry to continue to thrive, then it was quiet until after the Brown victory in Nov.

very vocal about supporting it.
It seems that you remember the spin by bloggers rather than what actually happened.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7458465

:silly:

Funny how that worked out, especially after Obama met in closed-door sessions with the insurance companies and refused to meet with single payer advocates at all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/22/AR2009122202101.html?hpid=topnews

"Nowhere has there been a bigger gap between the perceptions of compromise and the realities of compromise than in the health-care bill," Obama said. "Every single criteria for reform I put forward is in this bill."

In listing those priorities, he cited the 30 million uninsured Americans projected to receive coverage, estimated savings of more than $1 trillion over the next two decades, a "patients' bill of rights on steroids," and tax breaks to help small businesses pay for employee coverage.

Those elements are in the House and Senate versions of the legislation; their competing proposals will have to be reconciled in conference committee next year. The House bill includes a government-run insurance plan favored by progressive Democrats; the Senate version does not. "I didn't campaign on the public option," Obama said in the interview.

Throughout the health-care debate, the president has declined to weigh in with specific preferences. The tactic has exasperated his supporters, but his advisers have deemed it key in keeping the bill moving through a balky Congress. Obama called the public option his preferred choice to ensure broad coverage and provide cost-cutting competition to the private insurers. But he has never demanded that it be part of a final bill.

About the same time health CARE reform morphed into health INSURANCE reform.

"In his book, Daschle reveals that after the Senate Finance Committee and the White House convinced hospitals to accept $155 billion in payment reductions over ten years on July 8, the hospitals and Democrats operated under two “working assumptions.” “One was that the Senate would aim for health coverage of at least 94 percent of Americans,” Daschle writes. “The other was that it would contain no public health plan,” which would have reimbursed hospitals at a lower rate than private insurers."

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/10/05/the-deal-with-the-hospital-industry-to-kill-the-public-option/


We were had by a Trojan Horse.

He still has this session of congress to DO SOMETHING..But he wont.

Why misplace blame? Obama is not Santa Clause.

the senators, in exchange for dumping the public option.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Potato, potahto.... :eyes:

jesus christ...
it's one of the biggest reasons we got our asses handed to us last Tuesday.

If they presented the final bill, which is nothing more than regurgitated repuke crap, then he wouldn't gain the street cred of trying to be a Dem.

Him going through the various theatrics gave all concerned enough smoke and mirrors to keep them salivating enough to accept anything that was given to them in the end.

And what did we get in the end?

Oh we all know.

The bottom line is that what it came to.

Following the line of least resistance.

with this Admin, no fighters there.

go along to get along.

I guess far too many weren't paying attention when this sausage was being squeezed into the gut. I still remember finding over 160 pieces of this bill that were submitted and pushed by the Pubbies, and all the crying and hair pulling around here because of it, and all the calls on the Pubbie lies that they weren't consulted and that their suggestions weren't taken. WTF?

So now we're supposed to pretend this is all new news? And we're supposed to pretend this HC legislation has nothing good in it at all?

Jesus God... WTF??? Really?

:banghead:

What about the ability to keep your kids on your plan past their 25th birthday? What about not being denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition?

I could go on... but I won't... :banghead:

Allowing kids up until their 25th birthday is one of the better parts of the bill, but again there are few cost controls, and as far as the industry is concerned, they are collecting new payments, new customers.

In other countries, all you have to do is pay your taxes, take you card to the doctor and give it them, everyone is covered.

If these charlatans deny your coverage for any reason - it's you versus a team of industry lawyers.

The worst part is, the mandate gives them trillions to destroy every reform in the bill you might like.

"PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, partly because I couldn't get the kind of cooperation from Republicans that I had hoped for. We thought that if we shaped a bill that wasn't that different from bills that had previously been introduced by Republicans -- including a Republican governor in Massachusetts who's now running for President -- that, you know, we would be able to find some common ground there. And we just couldn't..."

Confirmation of that which was suspected/pointed out all along.

Back to my OP, in this thread there has been only one honest initial attempt at refutation. All the rest is snark or anger.

news to me.

Thanks for the thread.

based on our faith in Obama's doing the correct thing...given what he campaigned on. Some didn't see what was happening until further along when the damned thing was close to passage.

There's no doubt now from what he said in this interview that his intentions were different from what many of us thought they were in dealing with the Health Care Bill that he wanted as opposed to what WE THOUGHT he wanted.

That all he ever wanted was "Romney Care" explains why there was so much push back against what the Left wanted with Public Option. And, why Emmanuel and later Gibbs came out and felt free to ATTACK DEM LEFT calling them F**ing Retards and the rest.

It all makes sense now in hindsight with this latest Obama inteview. I'm glad we finally understand what he was doing, though. What he really wanted.

Obama had already cur a deal with "big insurance" to eliminate public option, like he cut a deal with "big pharma" not to negotiate of drug prices.

And people wonder what is wrong with Obama!

envisioned as a public option changed significantly.


Where are we on reform? Part 2 (Hacker)
Health Reform Lessons from the Past

Jacob Hacker, PhD
National Conference on the Un and Underinsured
December 12, 2007 (Day 3)

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/january/where_are_we_on_refo.php

"...Comment:
By Don McCanne, MD

The final Quote of the Day for 2007 discussed the disconnect between a new poll indicating strong support (65%) for “a universal health insurance program in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers,” and a rapidly growing movement within the progressive community to support a model based on allowing you to keep the insurance you have.

...Jacob Hacker has described very accurately the politics of health care reform. He has suggested an approach that, on surface, would appear to lead to affordable coverage for everyone, while passing the crucial test of political feasibility. His political message is very sound - in fact, so sound that the leading Democratic candidates have adopted his suggestions. He has stressed the importance of coalition building well in advance of the installation of a new government one year from now.

...So what coalition activities are we seeing within the progressive community? Many respected, influential leaders state that it is time to set aside the policy debate and proceed with a political strategy that will achieve our reform goals. There is one major problem with this approach: most of the difficult policy issues have yet to be addressed. But several of these coalition leaders have told the policy community quite bluntly that the policy debate is over, and all of the activities now must be about unity. We are commanded to unify behind health care reform that promises that you can keep the insurance you have or have the option to buy into a public program.

That’s it. That’s the policy behind which we are to unify. For the sake of unity, we are not to talk about the inability of the private insurance industry to provide us with affordable health plans that are comprehensive enough to meet our health care needs..."


THE HISTORY OF THE PUBLIC OPTION...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6456383&mesg_id=6456383

"...One key player was Roger Hickey of the Campaign for America's Future. Hickey took UC Berkley health care expert Jacob Hacker's idea for "a new public insurance pool modeled after Medicare" and went around to the community of single-payer advocates, making the case that this limited "public option" was the best they could hope for. Ideally, it would someday magically turn into single-payer. And then Hickey went to all the presidential candidates, acknowledging that politically, they couldn't support single-payer, but that the "public option" would attract a real progressive constituency. Here's Hickey from a speech to New Jersey Citizen Action in November 2007:


....Starting in January, we began to take Jacob Hacker to see the presidential candidates. We started with John Edwards and his advisers -- who quickly understood the value of Hacker's public plan, and when he announced his health proposal on "Meet The Press," he was very clear that his public plan could become the dominant part of his new health care program, if enough people choose it.


The rest is history. Following Edwards' lead, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton picked up on the public option compromise. So what we have is Jacob Hacker's policy idea, but largely Hickey and Health Care for America Now's political strategy. It was a real high-wire act -- to convince the single-payer advocates, who were the only engaged health care constituency on the left, that they could live with the public option as a kind of stealth single-payer, thus transferring their energy and enthusiasm to this alternative. It had a very positive political effect: It got all the candidates except Kucinich onto basically the same health reform structure, unlike in 1992, when every Democrat had his or her own gimmick. And the public option/insurance exchange structure was ambitious.

But the downside is that the political process turns out to be as resistant to stealth single-payer as it is to plain-old single-payer. If there is a public plan, it certainly won't be the kind of deal that could "become the dominant player." So now this energetic, well-funded group of progressives is fired up to defend something fairly complex and not necessarily essential to health reform. (Or, put another way, there are plenty of bad versions of a public plan.) The symbolic intensity is hard for others to understand. But the intensity is understandable if you recognize that this is what they gave up single-payer for, so they want to win at least that much.

The alternative history question would be: What if they had pushed for single-payer all along? Could the political process then have sold them out and compromised by supporting the public option we now look likely to lose?"

is repukes' responsibility.
we have been told of the ideal. we have seen why the need for the real.

have so many liberals forgotten our roots in dialectic?

He said for people to quit being so hard on Joe-that THIS was the bill the President wanted all along.

Even Schumer told us early on. When asked if the President would be able to get a public option, Schumer said the President will be able to get whatever he 'wants.'

In fact, he said it on two different occasions, the resistance to the Public Option outlined here at TPM: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/carlbentham/2009/07/update-list-of-dem-senators-wh.php

It is clear people will believe what they want to believe and that's the content of the narrative being driven here.

The same crap our government has been selling us for decades.

It's time to get totally past the point of thinking a vote does anything for you. Anything at all.

perception management spinners have the public so far down the rabbit hole it's beginning to look like up. :crazy:

"So why did we have all the drama? What was the reason for all those meetings? And I thought the bill was crafted by the Congress? What ought we anticipate on the bush tax cut extensions?"

Your guess is as good as mine. So my guess is (with regard to the healthcare bill), that it was all smoke and mirrors from the beginning. I say this in all sincerity. My doubts about the wisdom (or lack thereof) or the trustworthiness of this administration came early-on when it was announced that the very person who was a major architect in creating the circumstances in which the current financial meltdown was made possible (Lawrence Summers), was being brought in as the WH Economic Adviser. And another one who actually had a hand in causing the actual financial meltdown (Tim Geithner) was being made Treasury Secretary. They were obviously put in place to insure that Washington delivered on all of the Bush administration's promises of Wall Street receiving riches beyond their wildest dreams our money.

But then on the other hand, we've all known for sometime now that the system is totally corrupt, right? They're all pretty much wearing black hats now, because that's the system we have in-place (AKA: "Legal bribery"). It's mostly the lighting and makeup that makes our elected leaders look like they're good guys who're wearing white hats. Sometimes.

As for the Bush tax cut extensions, look for a similar Potemkin Village-like solution that will be promoted as a bi-partisan agreement and the Real Politic tit-for-tat that Professional Leftists will complain about, but only the serious and savvy thinkers, cable teevee pundits and politicos from Washington will be able to understand is the necessary give-and-take of high falutin politics, etc., etc., etc. When of course it'll be nothing of the sort - just more caving-in -- or more succinctly put: acquiescence.

And then The Repukers will no doubt feel free to move onto their next project, the serious work of planning the Wall Street grab of the Social Security Trust Fund. The hard part will be coming up with a way to blame it all on Obama and the Dems. I'm sure they'll come up with something. And whatever the campaign is, it'll prominently feature words like socialism and secret Muslim, Nazi-fascism and other things guaranteed to rile REAL AMERICANS up.

- Hey, they're Repukers -- they don't deal in complicated ideas.......

Now do you know why I don't "have his back"?

And now it's over.

by the Democratic leadership and insurance companies.

with respect, I call BS on this whole thread

One, in a series of statements designed to point out Republican obstruction?

Yes, we've exposed the soft underbelly of democracy (Because any fool can vote, any fool can be elected), but stupidity is self-limiting.

On the other hand, when the limit of stupidity is finally reached, the country may be in such bad shape that all of us go down with it.

Then there will be nothing left but emigration.

of people like me who got played. x( Well "fool me once" etc etc but it won't happen again. :mad:

we were being screwed.

about how SCREWED UP we've become as a country! Almost to a person, MOST feel some sort of eruption from within is going to happen.

I fear it won't be one any of us will like to see either. Things are getting so very bad and I'm afraid the pot is boiling over. I realize many think this is just stupid talk, and even I have felt NOTHING but whining was happening. Now, I'm not so sure. Sometimes I hear people I don't even know talking about it to one another. But so many of my friends and acquaintances feel "something" is about to blow.

One thing for sure, we can't go on like this for much longer. Even though we just had an election, I don't think this past election is one either side can be happy with. There IS JUST TOO MUCH UNREST!

JMHO!

Look - I can find all kinds of things about the HCR bill and the way it went through Congress to criticize. In the end... I'm glad it passed and will help people.

But... the thing that is totally frustrating me RIGHT now is that we are screaming at President Obama and the Dems to do better at communication and framing the debate.

That is exactly what he is doing here - he is framing the debate. "We worked in a bi-partisan manner, yet they still objected"...

He even pointed out Romney is running for Prez and that this bill was similar to Romneycare...

He's framing the damn debate folks... he is not saying that he was never in favor of a public option. They got what they could get when they could get it. Remember - we had just lost the 60th vote in the Senate and the ONLY way we were gonna pass this was if the House approved the Senate bill.

Pouncing like vultures in a "see - I told you so" fashion over a post mid-term electoral loss interview is non-productive. He is framing the g-damned debate not writing a memoir.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

to fool willfully ignorant "liberals" who assumed obama and his admin "must be progressive/liberal" because of the color of his skin, into supporting him long enough to accomplish the biggest giveaway to the insurance industry in american history, backed up by the IRS.

are you just coming to understand this today? i'm sorry, if so. it must be harsh for you.

I don't like the health care reform law, but I think you are all blowing these words out of proportion.

The deal with Big Pharma was NO Medicare "negotiation" on drug prices --

The deal with private health care industry was "NO SINGLE-PAYER" ... it would be

off the table!!

All in all Rahm "Crowed" about all of this in earlier this year -- saying how

"grateful" business should be for Obama's support -- !!!


Rahm .... crowing about preserving "private health care industry" ... business s/b grateful!

Thursday, August 12, 2010 10:03 AM


Here is the quote: ”In a Thursday interview, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel argued that rather than recoiling against Obama, business leaders should be grateful for his support on at least a half-dozen counts: his advocacy of greater international trade and education reform open markets despite union skepticism; his rejection of calls from some quarters to nationalize banks during the financial meltdown; the rescue of the automobile industry; the fact that

the overhaul of health care preserved the private delivery system;

the fact that billions in the stimulus package benefited business with lucrative new contracts, and that financial regulation reform will take away the uncertainty that existed with a broken, pre-crash regulatory apparatus.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B2F85DDF-18FE-70B2-A835FE1E7FA8D74C


That should make everyone here sick to their stomachs ....

and the pretending goes on and on!!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

However, several things give me pause. First, the notion that he is stupid is ridiculous. This is the same guy a BLACK man, named BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, who defeated the Clinton machine and won the presidency. I also think he is aware that, as a Black man in America, he has to be cautious in ways that a white man wouldn't, particularly looking across the table at the GOPer who are from:

1) McConnel - Kentucky
2) DeMint - South Carolina
3) Boner - Southern Ohio, Cincinnati (you think Cincinnati is not just like the deep south, you're crazy. I grew up 60 minutes from there and know firsthand.)
4) Cantor - Virginia

I tend to think that Obama, who has a wife, two kids and mother in law may be just a little "too aware" of what happens to Black folks who push too hard and stand up too much in these here United States....just a thought.

our only choice is whether it's sold with hate and fear or spineless platitudes, Freddy Krueger or Mr. Rogers.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/05/why-healthcare-reform-will-survive.html

Repeal and Replace?
Not so fast. An insurance-company defector explains why the most controversial provision of the health-care law will survive.

-snip-

The real reason insurers want the GOP leading Congress again is not to repeal “Obamacare,” but to try to gut some of the provisions of the law that protect consumers from the abuses of the industry, such as refusing to cover kids with preexisting conditions, canceling policyholders’ coverage when they get sick, and setting annual and lifetime limits on how much they’ll pay for medical care. Insurers also hate the provision that requires them to spend at least 80 percent of premium revenues on medical care, as well as the one that calls for eliminating the billions of dollars that the government has been overpaying them for years to participate in private Medicare plans. (Be on the lookout for a death panel–like fearmongering campaign to scare people into thinking, erroneously, that Granny and Pawpaw will lose their government health care if Congress doesn’t restore those “cuts” to Medicare.)

Insurers are not waiting for all their new members of Congress to be sworn in to get what they want. They and their big-business allies are already pressuring the Obama administration to waive or delay the implementation of provisions they don’t like, all the while working behind the scenes not only to protect the individual mandate but to have the government enforce it with much greater gusto. The one thing the industry didn’t like about the mandate provision was that the penalties for not buying their overpriced products won’t inflict nearly enough financial pain.

Retiring Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who once had been a part of the repeal-and-replace brigade, provoked the wrath of conservative pundits shortly before the midterm elections when he said, in a moment of unguarded candor, that repealing the law was not realistic. Instead, he said, the GOP should focus on “retooling” it. You can be certain that insurance-industry lobbyists will be helping their newly expanded congressional caucus determine what needs retooling. As my former Cigna colleague Bill Hoagland, the company’s top lobbyist, told the As-sociated Press a few days ago: “If you ended up repealing , the whole thing blows up. It doesn’t work. The cost would explode.” In other words, feel free to repeal those pesky consumer protections, but keep your hands off our mandate.

hear about someone else doing it.

The Democrats are like a restaurant that, instead of telling you about the menu, starts with the kind of bowel movement you'll have after you eat there.

to make sure i'd heard correctly.

It's the exact analysis most of us less partisan lefty types came to.


For some reason, many of the the partisans on this board were oblivious to what was occurring right in front of them. Now that President Obama has set them straight and told them flat out that the bill the Democrats passed was in many important and primary ways a Repo bill, I wonder if it will actually sink in and become part of their awareness.

Or will they continue to pretend the health care reform bill was "progressive," or "liberal."

In 2008, the country voted liberal and the liberals got out and voted. The kids voted, for instance. Many of those same people didn't vote in 2010.

Why?

i think it was because they voted liberal and won, but got handed Repo. So they wonder "What's the point?"

President's point.